!<■< 


GIFT  OF 


-J^jl — »-  C3->»-^  <V^^«rxy«_o.jui^_>( 


f 


^6 


BOOKS  BY  WILLIAM  NEWTON  CLARKE,  D.D. 
Published    by   CHARLES    SCRIBNER'S    SONS 


The  Ideal  of  Jesus.    8vo,    (Postage  extra),  net,  $1,50 

Sixty  Years  with  the  Bible.    lamo, 

net,  $1.25 

The  Christian    Doctrine    of    God.      (International 
Theological  Library.)  Cr.  8vo, 

net,  Sa.so 

The  Use  of  the  Scriptures  in  Theology,     lamo, 

net,  $1.00 

A  Study  of  Christian  Missions.     i2mo,  .      1.25 

Can  I  Believe  in  God  the  Father?     i2mo,     .      1.00 

What  Shall  We  Think  of  Christianity?    i2ino,   i.oo 

An  Outline  of  Christian  Theology.  Cr.  8vo,  net,  2.50 


THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 


THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 


BY 

WILLIAM  NEWTON  CLARKE 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

1911 


Cl  s^  ^ 


Copyright,  iqii,  by 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 


Published  August,  1911 


TO  THE  CHRISTIAN  BROTHERHOOD 


«0.'?9Qfi 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PACE 

I.  The  Purpose  of  this  Book i 

II.  The  Ideal  and  the  Method 15 

III.  The  Picture  of  the  High  Aim    ....  47 

IV.  The  Kingdom  of  God 63 

V.  Righteousness 98 

VI.  The  Twofold  Law  of  Love 117 

VII.  The  Filial  Life 140 

VIII.  Deliverance  from  Evil 164 

IX.  Liberty 185 

X.  Human  Value 204 

XL  Justice 215 

XII.  Wealth       228 

XIII.  Christianity 259 

XIV.  The  Church 280 

XV.  Society 301 


THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

I 

THE  PURPOSE  OF  THIS  BOOK 

In  the  twentieth  century  we  inherit  a  Christianity. 
It  comes  to  us  from  Jesus  the  Founder,  but  it  comes, 
of  necessity,  through  the  long  course  of  time.  It  is 
no  fault  of  ours  if  in  these  centuries  it  has  become 
modified,  and  is  not  altogether  like  that  which  came 
from  him  at  first.  We  could  not  expect,  and  he 
could  not  expect,  that  his  gift  to  the  world  would 
remain  unmodified.  He  must  have  known  that  his 
gift  of  spiritual  Hfe  would  enter  into  the  ever-chang- 
ing human  world,  and  influence  the  ages  as  they 
passed,  and  be  influenced  by  them  in  turn.  This 
certainty  of  change  is  due  not  only  to  human  de- 
pravity, or  even  to  human  imperfectness:  it  is  due 
just  as  much  to  the  germinant  vitality  of  the  spiritual 
Hfe  itself.  From  all  these  causes  combined  it  has 
come  to  pass  that  we  inherit  a  Christianity  differing 
in  many  respects  from  that  to  which  Jesus  gave  the 
first  impulse  in  the  world. 

It  has  come  to  us  in  so  many  forms  that  we  are 
often  perplexed,  and  eagerly  inquire  which  is  the  true, 
or  whether  we  can  be  sure  of  any  of  them.     The 

1 


2  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

various  forms  of  it  have  hard  work  to  recognize  one 
another.  They  differ  in  what  they  judge  to  be  vital 
characteristics,  and  though  they  all  claim  the  name 
Christian,  they  often  deny  it  to  one  another.  Per- 
plexed by  this  variety  in  thought,  in  spirit,  and  in 
outward  form,  modern  Christians  are  inquiring  again 
and  again  what  the  real  Christianity  is.  It  is  not 
unbelief  that  asks  "What  is  Christianity .?"  and  it  is 
not  mere  curiosity.  It  is  faith  that  asks,  it  is  honesty, 
it  is  desire  to  know  the  truth  and  have  the  best. 
Christianity  is  so  precious  a  thing,  and  so  necessary 
to  all  good  hopes,  that  the  present  age  must  know 
just  what  it  is.  No  one  inquirer  may  find  an  answer 
that  will  satisfy  all,  but  the  inquiry  is  certain  to 
continue.  The  Christian  heart  feels  that  it  must 
know  what  Christianity  really  is,  and  the  Christian 
mind  cannot  refrain  from  the  search. 

It  is  well  to  know  what  we  are  looking  for.  In 
the  present  age  we  must  not  look  for  some  definite 
institution  or  set  of  facts  or  ideas  that  corresponds 
entirely  to  the  original  gift  of  Jesus.  The  power  of 
his  religion  to  grow  forbids  that,  and  the  power  of  the 
soil  to  influence  the  harvest  forbids  it  again.  Besides, 
Jesus  was  no  founder  of  unchangeable  institutions. 
We  search  his  record  in  vain  for  any  such  idea  of 
his  purpose.  He  was  no  builder  of  pyramids,  to 
stand  unchanged  for  ages:  he  was  an  inspirer  of 
men,  who  were  to  breathe  the  air  of  his  kingdom  and 
train  their  children  to  do  the  same.  So  we  are  not 
to  look  for  the  exact  preservation  of  a  deposit  that  he 
made  with  men,  or  the  precise  reproduction  of  a 


THE  PURPOSE   OF  THIS  BOOK  3 

pattern  that  he  gave.  That  is  not  his  way,  nor  is  it 
a  possible  way.  And  yet  nothing  is  more  certain 
than  that  in  our  search  for  Christianity  to-day  we 
must  look  for  the  gift  of  Christ.  If  our  Christianity 
have  not  the  spirit  of  Christ  it  is  none  of  his.  Any- 
thing that  is  worthy  of  the  name  will  have  its  source  in 
him,  and  will  have  a  Hving  unity  with  the  gift  that 
he  originally  bestowed. 

Our  true  guide  in  the  discovery  and  estimating  of 
modern  Christianity  is  this:  Jesus  performed  his 
work  in  the  world,  and  gave  spirit  and  form  to  his 
gift  to  the  future,  under  the  inspiration  of  what  in 
modern  speech  we  call  an  ideal — an  ideal  not  only 
for  his  own  Hfe  but  for  all  life.  Every  far-reaching 
scheme  of  Hfe  looks  onward  to  an  ideal,  which  repre- 
sents its  aspirations  and  inspires  its  activities.  Every 
forward-reaching  mind,  seeking  to  influence  men, 
holds  its  ideal  aloft  as  the  banner  of  the  march  that 
it  leads.  Jesus  had  his  ideal;  he  had  his  conception 
of  what  hfe  ought  to  be,  and  of  what  he  supremely 
desired  that  Hfe  might  become.  The  vision  floated 
before  him  of  Hfe  rightly  allied  to  the  powers  above 
and  rightly  exercised  upon  the  plane  of  its  being;  of 
life  personal,  expressed  in  all  such  character  and 
conduct  as  are  worthiest  of  men,  and  of  Hfe  social, 
wrought  out  in  all  such  spirit  and  service  as  make  the 
best  and  most  successful  world.  It  was  an  ideal  for 
men  and  for  man,  for  the  Hfe  of  men  and  the  life  of 
man,  all  held  in  true  relation  to  God  the  source  and 
end  of  all.  It  was  in  the  light  of  this  ideal  that  Jesus 
uttered  every  word  of  teaching,  and  wrought  every 


4  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

work  of  help,  and  gave  himself  to  and  for  the  world. 
To  bring  this  ideal  to  reahty  he  lived  and  died, 
and  this  ideal  represents  his  contribution  to  hu- 
manity. 

It  represents  his  contribution  to  humanity  better 
than  anything  else  that  we  can  mention.  He  be- 
queathed to  the  future  no  scheme  of  doctrines  and 
no  set  of  institutions.  He  was  devoted  to  no  church 
or  school,  but  he  was  devoted  to  his  ideal  in  Hfe  and 
death,  and  in  it  lay  his  hope  for  men.  This  represents 
him,  and  it  would  be  well  if  his  ideal  were  so  bound 
to  his  name  that  he  could  not  be  mentioned  without 
reviving  it  in  thought.  If  any  religion  springs  up  to 
continue  his  work  of  blessing,  we  may  be  sure  that  it 
will  be  worthy  of  his  name  just  so  far  as  it  cherishes 
his  ideal  and  lives  to  realize  it.  The  religion  may 
take  various  forms,  and  accept  various  ways  of  think- 
ing and  modes  of  Hfe,  but  it  will  be  a  Christian 
religion  if  the  ideal  of  Jesus  constitutes  the  object 
of  its  being. 

So  when  we  ask  ''What  is  Christianity  ?"  and  look 
about  us  for  an  answer,  we  are  to  look  for  a  living 
ideal,  to  which  certain  men  are  trying  to  conform 
themselves,  one  another,  and  the  world.  If  we  find 
this  ideal  alive,  inspired  by  Christ,  we  have  found 
Christianity;  if  it  has  died,  the  real  Christianity  is 
dead,  however  many  churches  and  sound  doctrines 
there  may  be.  And  if  in  the  twentieth  century  we 
are  to  be  better  Christians,  we  need  to  behold  the 
vision  that  he  beheld,  to  conceive  of  life  as  he  con- 
ceived it,  to  ground  the  ideal  in  eternal  reality  as  he 


THE   PURPOSE   OF   THIS   BOOK  5 

did,  and  to  be  mastered  by  the  same  constraining  pur- 
pose to  bring  his  vision  into  actuality  in  ourselves 
and  all  men. 

It  may  be  objected  that  an  ideal  is  too  vague  a  thing 
to  occupy  such  a  place  as  is  here  assigned  to  it.  An 
ideal  is  an  indefinite  thing.  It  is  unclear.  No  two 
persons  can  see  it  alike.  No  one  can  tell  exactly 
when  it  is  realized.  No  man  can  see  Jesus*  ideal  as 
he  saw  it,  or  know  how  near  he  comes  to  fulfilling  it. 

The  answer  is  that  all  this  is  true.  An  ideal  is  an 
indefinable  thing,  and  is  not  the  same  to  any  two  per- 
sons. The  ideal  that  lay  in  Jesus'  mind  we  cannot 
hope  perfectly  to  discern.  We  do  not  know  exactly 
what  the  realization  of  it  would  be.  But  this  is  the 
glory  of  ideals.  It  is  their  nature  to  be  great  and 
broad  and  comprehensive,  too  rich  and  full  to  be  the 
same  to  all,  too  inclusive  to  be  realizable  in  any 
single  form  or  mode.  The  ideal  in  architecture, 
for  example,  is  made  up  of  certain  qualities,  none 
of  which  may  be  left  out  in  thought  or  sacrificed 
in  building — qualities  like  strength,  beauty,  dignity, 
appropriateness,  durability.  They  are  all  perfectly 
conceivable,  but  not  one  of  them  is  precisely  definable. 
No  two  persons  conceive  of  them  alike.  Each  of 
them  may  be  manifested  in  a  great  variety  of  ways, 
and  there  is  no  one  architectural  style  in  which  alone 
they  can  be  embodied.  Yet  all  this  makes  no  dif- 
ficulty. Architects  have  their  visions,  and  the  one 
ideal  draws  them  on  to  manifold  success.  The  ideal, 
in  fact,  is  the  inspiration  of  all  the  styles,  and  gives 


6  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

them  all  the  value  that  they  possess.  No  man  can 
grasp  it,  but  every  man  can  realize  it  more  or  less. 
And  if  v^e  can  learn  well  of  Jesus,  we  shall  find  that 
his  ideal,  too  great  for  comprehension,  is  not  too  great 
for  daily  use,  and  is  the  one  thing  that  all  life  needs 
to  give  it  the  noblest  worth. 

In  this  book  I  propose  to  follow  the  Master  in  the 
exhibition  of  his  ideal.  I  think  we  have  the  means 
of  discovering  very  clearly  what  the  ideal  was  by 
which  Jesus  was  controlled  and  which  he  held  forth 
to  his  disciples,  and  I  wish  to  bring  it  out  from  the 
record  of  his  life  and  words.  I  shall  endeavor  so  to 
expound  him  and  his  utterances  as  to  make  exhibi- 
tion of  the  ideal  to  which  he  was  devoted.  I  shall  not 
attempt  to  do  this  exhaustively,  making  sure  that 
I  gather  in  every  word  by  which  the  picture  might 
be  brought  toward  completion.  I  am  not  studying 
closeness  of  detail,  but  broad  general  portrayal,  for 
practical  use.  I  think  it  possible  to  bring  forth  from 
our  records  a  clear  view  of  the  large  ideal  of  man  and 
his  life  that  was  characteristic  of  Jesus,  and  that  he 
left  as  a  guiding  light  to  all  who  seek  the  best.  It  is 
scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  if  I  succeed  in  doing 
this  I  shall  be  presenting  the  meaning  and  spirit  of 
Christianity  as  it  was  first  given  to  the  world.  I  am 
sure  that  we  can  learn  this  clearly  enough  to  make  it 
our  own  if  we  will,  and  to  judge  our  own  Christianity 
by  it.  I  shall  be  surprised  if  readers  do  not  feel  that 
it  is  truly  the  supreme  ideal  for  human  life.  It  cer- 
tainly is  the  ideal  to  which  the  spirit  of  our  Christian- 


THE  PURPOSE  OF  THIS  BOOK  7 

ity  must  be  conformed,  and  in  the  light  of  which  we 
must  judge  ourselves,  our  institutions,  our  aspirations, 
and  our  work.  In  the  whole-hearted  adoption  of  this 
ideal  Hes  our  only  hope  of  becoming  better  Christians 
and  of  leading  on  toward  a  Christian  world.  In  this 
Hght  I  see  abundant  reason  to  hope  that  the  unfolding 
of  the  Christian  ideal  may  be  a  useful  service. 

I  have  just  said  that  I  consider  this  undertaking 
practicable:  the  ideal  of  Jesus  is  so  revealed  that  we 
can  see  it.  If  we  study  Jesus  our  field  is  the  Gospels, 
and  there  I  hope  to  bring  my  readers,  if  I  may,  into 
the  presence  of  the  Person  whose  ideal  we  desire  to 
learn.  The  point  upon  which  I  would  here  insist  is 
that  for  the  ascertainment  of  that  ideal  our  materials 
are  entirely  sufficient.  This  indeed,  which  is  the 
great  practical  gift  of  Jesus  to  our  life,  is  precisely 
the  thing  concerning  him  which  our  materials  best 
enable  us  to  ascertain. 

We  are  often  told  that  we  know  less  about  the 
actual  words  of  Jesus  than  we  have  supposed  we 
knew.  We  are  reminded  of  the  indirectness  of  our 
information,  of  the  imperfectness  of  understanding 
and  memory  in  his  auditors,  of  the  modifying  force 
of  tradition,  of  the  reverent  attributing  to  him  of 
much  that  his  followers  had  learned  from  him,  of 
variations  in  manuscripts,  and  of  the  fact  that  we 
have  his  words  only  in  a  translation  into  the  Greek. 
In  all  these  suggestions  there  is  truth.  If  I  were 
undertaking  a  work  that  required  an  unquestionable 
list  of  all  his  sayings,  equally  certified  and  perfectly 
preserved,  I  should  be  attempting  the  impossible. 


8  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

But  I  am  undertaking  a  different  task.  I  am  seeking 
knowledge  of  the  ideal  of  life  that  Jesus  entertained 
and  passed  on  to  us;  or,  in  other  words,  I  am  seeking 
a  broad  understanding  of  the  mind  of  Christ.  I  wish 
to  discover  in  the  large  what  he  said  and  did  to  show 
the  manner  of  life  that  men  ought  to  live,  and  may 
hve  through  the  grace  of  God.  What  I  say  is  that 
for  this  work  we  have  abundant  materials. 

As  to  the  broad  fact  of  the  character  and  influence 
of  Jesus,  we  need  be  in  no  doubt.  Criticism  has 
not  taken  away  the  mass  of  our  material  for  judgment. 
The  Great  Teacher  is  not  a  myth  or  a  shadow,  nor 
is  his  teaching  an  elusive  thing.  From  the  records 
that  we  possess  there  stands  out  the  figure  of  the 
Mighty  One  of  God — mighty  in  fulness  of  spiritual 
truth,  mighty  in  simplicity  and  straightforwardness, 
and  mighty  in  the  singleness  of  his  devotion  to  the 
true  end  of  life.  He  spoke  to  his  contemporaries 
with  desire  to  be  understood,  but  he  is  far  more  in- 
telligible to  us  of  the  twentieth  century  than  he  was 
to  them.  There  is  no  doubt  whatever  as  to  what  he 
stood  for.  Here  he  is  like  Socrates:  whatever  un- 
certainties there  may  be  about  details  of  his  life  or  the 
manner  of  his  teaching,  no  one  ever  doubts  what 
Socrates  stood  for,  or  what  is  his  contribution  to  man- 
kind. This  is  exactly  what  we  say  of  Jesus.  There 
is  no  ambiguity  about  his  position:  the  meaning  of 
his  message  is  as  clear  as  the  sun  in  the  heavens. 
Various  things  about  him  we  do  not  know  and  may 
never  discover,  but  his  dominant  views  of  God  and 
man  and  life  are  as  well  ascertained  and  known  as 


THE  PURPOSE  OF  THIS  BOOK  9 

anything  in  history.  So  we  are  entering  upon  no 
uncertain  quest. 

When  we  have  said  that  we  are  sure  of  the  charac- 
ter of  the  main  teaching  of  Jesus,  we  have  impHed 
something  more.  If  we  know  the  character  of  his 
main  teaching,  we  know  the  character  of  the  whole. 
As  we  become  acquainted  with  him  in  the  Gospels 
we  discern  an  integrity  so  fine  as  to  make  us  sure  that 
in  his  spiritual  attitude  he  was  consistent.  We  are 
impressed  by  the  conviction  that  with  regard  to  those 
simple  and  sublime  principles  that  lie  at  the  base  of 
his  teaching  he  cannot  have  contradicted  himself. 
So  wise  and  true  a  soul  did  not  deny  his  own  highest 
words,  or  contradict  the  truth  that  he  was  conveying. 
His  tone  will  not  vary:  to  his  ideal  we  know  that  we 
shall  find  him  always  loyal.  When  we  have  learned 
his  ideal  we  have  learned  him,  for  he  knew  only  one 
way  of  life. 

Hence  when  I  speak  of  the  ideal  of  Jesus  I  speak  of 
his  whole  revelation  and  testimony  concerning  the 
life  of  man.  If  I  unfold  it,  I  shall  be  deaHng  with 
his  great  characteristic  conception;  and  it  is  to  dis- 
cover this  that  I  now  turn  to  the  Gospels.  And, 
plainly  enough,  my  way  is  wide  open.  I  am  not 
dealing  with  one  question  out  of  many.  This  is  no 
side  issue  or  minor  point,  to  be  found  only  here  and 
there,  and  proved  by  a  text  or  two.  This  must  per- 
vade the  whole  material.  By  searching  we  certainly 
can  find  what  we  seek.  If  we  know  anything  at  all 
of  Jesus  Christ,  we  know  enough  to  show  us  what  his 
ideal  is.     This  is  why  I  am  satisfied  with  the  material 


10  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

that  lies  ready  to  my  hand.  I  am  thankful  that  my 
purpose  is  to  treat  of  that  which  we  can  best  discover. 
When  we  wish  to  learn  the  Christian  ideal,  we  draw 
near  with  receptive  souls  to  him  who  has  inspired  it, 
and  attend  to  the  life  and  words  in  which  he  gave  it 
forth.  We  are  not  long  in  discerning  the  view  of 
God  and  man  which  is  "the  master-light  of  all  his 
seeing."  We  behold  his  ideal  in  his  life  and  words. 
His  vision  shines  before  us.  It  is  not  doctrinahzed 
in  our  sources,  or  dogmatically  put,  even  if  that  were 
possible,  but  is  presented  as  a  vital  reaHty,  and  offered 
as  an  inspiration.  He  impresses  us  as  living  souls, 
we  understand  him,  we  catch  his  idea,  we  see  that  to 
which  he  points  us.  When  we  learn  of  him  in  his 
own  spirit,  his  vision  becomes  ours. 

In  studying  the  Gospels  to  find  the  broad  Christian 
ideal,  I  find  myself  more  free  in  the  use  of  my  mate- 
rials than  I  might  be  if  the  purpose  were  different. 
I  am  less  limited  by  criticism.  I  am  not  proposing  an 
exhaustive  study  of  all  the  words  of  Jesus,  distin- 
guished from  everything  else.  I  am  simply  seeking 
to  discover  his  supreme  and  constraining  view  of  life. 
There  is  a  large  and  harmonious  body  of  matter  in 
the  Gospels,  including  their  main  substance,  that 
shows  his  view  of  life  with  perfect  clearness.  It  is 
homogeneous,  and  holds  together  in  moral  unity.  As 
I  examine  it  I  cannot  doubt  that  it  really  gives  me 
what  I  am  seeking.  Therefore  I  take  it  as  representa- 
tive of  him  whom  I  am  seeking  to  understand.  Here 
I  see  what  Jesus  meant  and  stood  for.  But  in  the 
critical  field  two  possibilities  meet  me.    One  of  them 


THE  PURPOSE   OF  THIS  BOOK  11 

is  that  some  of  the  passages  that  compose  this  har- 
monious group  may  not  be  satisfactory  to  textual 
criticism:  it  may  not  appear  certain  that  they  are 
words  of  Jesus  himself;  it  may  appear  probable  that 
they  were  attributed  to  him  by  some  of  his  followers, 
instead  of  falHng  from  his  lips.  They  may  be  later 
unfoldings  of  his  teaching.  If  I  were  drawing  strict 
lines  through  the  Gospels,  I  should  have  to  insist 
upon  the  distinction  that  is  noted  here.  But  in 
the  search  for  Jesus'  large  view  of  hfe  such  passages 
are  not  useless,  nor  need  I  disregard  them.  Utter- 
ances that  fall  in  with  his  general  thought  have  their 
value  in  such  a  study,  even  if  they  came  not  from  him 
but  from  men  who  had  learned  of  him.  A  charac- 
teristic word  is  not  less  illustrative  of  his  ideal  be- 
cause it  came  from  Jesus  as  it  were  at  second  hand, 
inspired  by  him  in  the  soul  of  a  man  who  but  for  him 
would  never  have  spoken  it. 

The  other  possibiHty  is  that  I  may  find  in  the  Gos- 
pels some  sayings  attributed  to  Jesus  that  are  not 
spiritually  in  agreement  with  this  great  central  body 
of  his  teaching.  I  must  own  that  there  may  be  such 
passages,  for  I  can  perfectly  understand  how  in  the 
historical  process  by  which  the  Gospels  were  pro- 
duced they  might  creep  in.  What  of  these  if  I  find 
them  ?  Must  I  stumble  at  them,  and  fear  that  the 
unity  of  my  sources  is  destroyed,  and  set  myself  to 
make  good  the  injury  by  reconciling  the  contradiction 
that  I  have  found  in  the  words  of  Jesus  I  No:  my 
purpose  justifies  me  in  passing  them  by.  My  con- 
fidence in  Jesus*  integrity  and  consistency  is  complete. 


12  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

I  am  sure  that  he  did  not  contradict  the  fundamental 
principles  of  his  life.  If  I  find  sayings  attributed  to 
him  that  are  inconsistent  with  his  characteristic 
thought,  I  shall  be  sure  that  they  are  not  his  as  they 
stand,  but  have  been  attributed  to  him  through  some 
misunderstanding.  If  they  were  his  as  they  stand, 
they  would  have  to  be  understood  in  the  light  of  some 
unrecorded  circumstance  which  we  cannot  recover. 
In  any  case  they  would  not  be  available  for  our  use 
in  understanding  him  and  his  vision.  After  one  has 
made  acquaintance  with  the  Master,  the  evidence  as 
to  what  he  said  is  not  all  found  in  manuscripts  and 
other  external  witnesses.  A  part  of  it  resides  in  the 
character  of  the  sayings.  "Can  he  have  said  it?'' 
is  a  perfectly  proper  question,  and  one  that  we  may 
often  have  to  ask.  It  is  not,  as  we  might  fear,  a  ques- 
tion that  can  have  only  a  subjective  and  worthless 
answer,  for  it  does  not  propose  to  make  our  prefer- 
ences the  touchstone  for  judging  what  he  said.  It 
simply  means,  "We  know  him  as  the  author  of  this 
saying,  and  this,  and  this,  in  which  we  trace  the  rul- 
ing spirit  of  his  life;  can  he,  then,  have  been  the  author 
of  this  also,  which  contradicts  that  spirit.^*' — and  it 
ought  not  to  be  so  very  hard  to  judg'e  whether  expres- 
sions are  spiritually  contradictory  or  not.  Sometimes 
we  may  be  in  doubt  as  to  the  true  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion, and  sometimes  we  may  err  in  answering  it. 
But  if  we  err,  we  err  in  the  exercise  of  a  right  and  nor- 
mal judgment,  for  the  question  is  one  that  we  have  a 
right  to  ask. 

Thus  it  comes  to  pass  that  I  am  more  independent 


THE  PURPOSE  OF  THIS  BOOK  13 

of  criticism  and  its  findings  than  I  might  be  if  I  were 
engaged  in  inquiry  of  some  other  kind.  My  quest 
justifies  me  in  larger  use  of  inward  and  spiritual  evi- 
dence than  criticism  by  itself  is  wont  to  allow.  It  is 
not  as  a  critic,  but  as  a  student  of  morals  and  rehgion, 
that  I  Hsten  to  the  Master  to  hear  him  describe  his 
ideal. 

It  must  be  added  that  the  ideal  that  is  here  set 
forth  will  be  that  of  the  Synoptical  Gospels.  There 
is  no  other  way.  How  I  have  wondered  about  the 
mighty  Fourth!  The  reason  why  it  is  not  used  in 
the  present  study  is  not  that  there  are  questions  about 
its  authorship  and  date.  The  reason  is  that  whoever 
the  author  may  have  been,  there  is  no  question  about 
the  manner  in  which  he  used  his  historical  mate- 
rials. In  a  most  unusual  degree  they  have  been 
cast  in  the  mould  of  his  own  mind.  Words  that  he 
attributes  to  Jesus  he  certainly  has  recorded  in  lan- 
guage of  his  own,  and  how  far  they  represent  the 
actual  speaking  Jesus,  and  how  far  his  own  adoring 
faith  and  reflection,  he  has  not  enabled  us  to  tell. 
And  so,  just  at  the  vital  point  for  the  present  purpose, 
his  writing  fails  me.  Utterances  that  have  been  con- 
sciously recast  by  another  mind,  however  true  their 
spiritual  testimony  may  be,  cannot  rightly  be  used 
for  the  purpose  of  setting  forth  the  actual  ideal  of  the 
living  Jesus  himself. 

Perhaps  I  should  apologize  for  disappointing  one 
possible  expectation.  In  a  study  in  the  Gospels  I 
might  be  expected  to  follow  the  custom  of  citing 
chapter  and  verse  in  text  or  foot-note  whenever  I  quote 


14  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

Scripture  or  refer  to  it;  but  this  I  do  not  propose  to 
do.  I  wish  my  reader  to  read  right  on.  Moreover, 
I  shall  be  deahng  with  the  most  familiar  matters  in 
the  Bible;  and  the  Gospels  are  not  so  large,  or  so  un- 
famihar,  that  a  reader  may  not  be  trusted  to  find  the 
special  statements  for  himself  if  he  wishes  to  have 
them  before  his  eyes. 


II 

THE   IDEAL   AND  THE  METHOD 

The  ideal  of  Jesus  is  as  broad  as  the  whole  field  of 
ethics  and  religion — that  is,  as  broad  as  the  field  of 
life;  and  his  method  in  making  it  known  is  a  method 
adapted  to  bring  to  pass  a  strong  and  independent 
possession  of  the  character  in  which  it  consists. 

Who  first  called  Jesus  the  Great  Teacher  we  do 
not  know,  but  of  the  lofty  names  that  rightly  belong 
to  him  this  surely  is  one.  Through  all  Christian 
time  he  has  stood  before  the  world  as  the  supreme 
teacher  in  religion.  Other  teachers  of  religion  there 
have  been,  before  him  and  after,  but  he  stands  out 
pre-eminent  in  quality  and  power.  To  those  who 
learned  of  him  he  imparted  a  conception  and  an 
inspiration  that  made  of  religion  a  new  thing.  His 
own  vital  conception  of  God  and  man,  Hfe  and  salva- 
tion, he  so  imparted  to  other  souls  as  to  transfigure 
the  religious  life.  He  created  the  Christian  religion, 
and  has  been  the  living  source  of  religious  experience 
to  a  large  part  of  mankind  for  almost  two  thousand 
years.  Directly  he  has  given  forth  epoch-making 
truth  and  Hfe,  and  indirectly,  through  those  whom  he 
has  instructed  and  inspired,  he  has  given  innumerable 

15 


16  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

unfoldings  and  applications  of  his  primary  message. 
In  religion  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Great  Teacher. 

In  modern  times  he  appears  equally  great  as  a 
teacher  of  ethics.  This  second  character  was  never 
unknown  to  Christians,  and  yet  in  an  important  sense 
it  is  new  to  them.  Not  so  very  long  ago  he  was  re- 
garded almost  as  a  teacher  of  religion  only.  In  the 
rank  and  file  of  Christians  the  name  ethics  was  not  very 
well  known,  and  the  distinct  field  of  interest  which  it 
represents  had  not  become  familiar.  Some  of  us  can 
remember  when  the  name  religion  covered  the  whole 
field  of  Christian  interest.  It  was  of  course  under- 
stood that  Jesus  bade  us  do  right,  and  taught  us 
many  of  our  duties,  and  the  high  graces  of  the  Chris- 
tian character  were  commended  to  us  in  his  name. 
He  was  the  Lord  of  holy  life  for  his  people,  and  the 
counsellor  of  good  fife  for  all.  But  there  was  a  theo- 
logical embarrassment.  Good  works  had  almost 
been  removed  from  the  sphere  of  ethics  to  that  of  doc- 
trine, and  were  discussed  chiefly  with  reference  to 
their  place  in  the  scheme  of  salvation.  Were  men  to 
be  saved  by  them,  or  without  reference  to  them  I 
Had  they  any  real  value  ^  Standing  by  themselves, 
were  they  an  advantage  to  a  man  or  a  disadvantage 
in  the  sight  of  God  .?  The  question  whether  a  man 
was  to  be  saved  by  his  good  works  often  seemed  al- 
most to  eclipse  the  question  whether  he  was  perform- 
ing any:  sometimes,  indeed,  the  discussion  tended  to 
discourage  them.  By  this  inheritance  of  a  doctrinal 
discussion  from  the  Reformation  the  proper  estimate 
of  the  importance  of  conduct  was  long  obscured  in 


THE   IDEAL  AND   THE   METHOD  17 

the  Protestant  churches,  and  the  normal  interest  of 
Christians  in  ethics  was  postponed.  The  discussion 
was  a  vital  one  in  its  day,  and  the  doctrine  involved 
is  vital  forever;  nevertheless,  from  the  controversy 
there  resulted  a  most  unfortunate  slurring  of  ethics 
in  the  teaching  of  Christians.  In  the  harm  that  was 
done  there  was  included  a  serious  misconception  of 
Jesus  Christ.  That  he  held  ethics  and  rehgion  in 
inseparable  unity  was  not  taken  to  heart  as  an  actual 
fact.  So  far  as  he  did  teach  conduct,  it  was  thought 
to  be  as  a  kind  of  appendix  to  religion — just  as  good 
life  itself  was  regarded  as  a  corollary  to  religious  life, 
a  matter  of  inference  from  the  motives  that  come  with 
salvation.  That  Jesus  the  Saviour  of  men  was  actu- 
ally interested  in  human  conduct  for  its  own  sake,  and 
that  the  application  of  his  moral  teaching  ranged 
as  wide  as  humanity,  was  scarcely  a  vital  conception 
among  the  Christian  people.  So  the  Master  was 
partly  understood  and  partly  misunderstood  by  his 
friends,  with  the  result  that  the  equal  interest  of  God 
himself  in  human  conduct  everywhere  was  unhappily 
obscured. 

But  at  present  we  are  coming  to  look  with  different 
eyes  upon  ethics,  and  upon  Jesus  too.  Upon  Jesus 
we  look  with  eyes  that  see  more  of  his  historical  reality 
and  vitality.  Modern  study  has  given  us  a  new  angle 
of  vision.  It  is  the  living  personal  Jesus  embosomed 
in  the  life  of  mankind  that  the  Gospels  reveal  to  us. 
He  is  nearer  us  than  we  thought,  and  we  understand 
his  words  in  the  light  of  their  living  context  of  hu- 
manity.    He   speaks   more   about  our  daily  affairs 


18  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

than  we  once  thought  possible  to  the  Son  of  God. 
Learning  that  nothing  human  was  foreign  to  him, 
we  welcome  him  to  a  more  intimate  Mastership,  and 
a  more  practical.  The  change  is  most  wholesome. 
And  while  we  have  been  learning  this  about  Jesus, 
the  modern  world  has  been  learning  to  see  ethics  in  a 
new  light.  The  doctrine  of  right  character  and  con- 
duct has  been  coming  to  its  own,  and  taking  its  place 
beside  the  doctrine  of  rehgion.  Imperfectly  indeed, 
and  yet  really,  the  best  thought  of  the  age,  and  the 
common  life  as  well,  is  finding  out  the  absolute 
supremacy  of  ethical  considerations.  Ethics  has 
risen  to  the  height  on  which  religion  stood  alone,  and 
will  never  again  come  down  therefrom.  Conse- 
quently we  have  no  difficulty  in  thinking  of  one  and 
the  same  Great  Teacher  as  standing  equally  for 
ethics  and  religion.  Indeed,  we  now  see  that  a 
teacher  who  did  not  stand  equally  for  ethics  and  re- 
ligion would  be  a  one-sided  teacher  and  a  mislead- 
ing guide.  It  is  true  that  there  are  still  some  Chris- 
tians to  whom  the  word  ethics  or  ethical  seems  a  cold 
and  unspiritual  word,  suggestive  of  non-religious  life 
and  self-righteous  motive.  But  this  is  only  a  survival 
of  misjudgment,  and  the  fact  is  more  and  more  recog- 
nized that  by  the  teaching  of  our  Master  Jesus  the 
two  fields  are  equally  covered — as  indeed  they  must 
be  if  he  is  what  we  take  him  for,  the  Teacher  sent 
from  God.  There  is  only  one  divine  ideal,  and  it 
comprehends  both  fields,  or  it  would  be  no  divine 
ideal.  Accordingly,  with  no  slightest  derogation 
from  his  religious  value,  and  with  fine  enlightening 


THE   IDEAL  AND   THE  METHOD  19 

effect  upon  our  conception  of  his  greatness,  we  are 
able  to  add  to  the  titles  of  Jesus  the  worthy  name  of 
the  Great  Teacher  in  Ethics. 

It  will  be  well  if  we  can  think  clearly  of  the  callings 
of  the  two  teachers  who  are  thus  set  before  us.  A 
teacher  of  religion  must  needs  be  a  revealer  of  the 
unseen.  He  has  to  do  with  the  invisible  hfe  of  men, 
the  life  of  the  soul.  He  shows  them  what  great  reali- 
ties there  are  in  the  invisible  life,  and  how  their  own 
being  may  find  there  its  satisfaction.  A  poor  and  low 
religious  teacher  will  grope  his  way,  and  find  what  he 
can,  and  tell  what  Httle  he  knows;  but  the  ideal 
religious  teacher  will  discern  that  which  really  is, 
and  open  to  men  the  truth  concerning  the  higher 
element  in  the  human  lot.  He  will  tell  them  of  their 
relation  to  the  living  God,  show  them  what  God  re- 
quires of  them  and  will  do  for  them,  open  to  them 
the  fount  of  help  that  they  cannot  see,  inspire  in  them 
the  power  to  Hve  as  in  sight  of  this  invisible  reality, 
and  train  them  in  the  high  art  of  subduing  all  their 
life  to  the  governance  of  the  great  Unseen.  A  teacher 
of  ethics,  on  the  other  hand,  is  an  interpreter  of  cer- 
tain things  that  are  seen.  He  views  men  in  their 
life  and  character,  and  conduct  in  the  hght  of  right 
and  wrong,  or  moral  good  and  evil.  It  is  his  oflSce 
to  help  men  to  live  as  they  ought  in  all  their  affairs. 
He  appeals  to  the  moral  nature,  turns  the  searching 
moral  light  upon  actual  and  tangible  affairs  of  every 
kind,  helps  men  to  the  right  point  of  view  for  self- 
judgment  and  for  mutual  judgment,  and  thus  seeks 


20  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

to  establish  and  confirm  the  dominion  of  duty  in 
human  Hfe.  An  inferior  teacher  in  ethics  may  do  the 
best  he  can,  but  the  ideal  teacher  will  throw  the  Hght 
of  essential  and  eternal  righteousness  upon  all  tem- 
poral affairs  and  establish  in  men  that  which  for- 
ever ought  to  be.  Such  are  the  two  callings,  different 
yet  perfectly  harmonious.  It  is  evident  that  if  one 
teacher  covers  these  two  fields,  he  will  cover  the  entire 
field  of  human  life,  viewed  in  its  higher  aspects; 
and  it  is  evident  also  that  it  is  the  ideal  way  for  one 
teacher  to  cover  both  these  fields.  If  one  Great 
Teacher  can  illuminate  the  invisible  world  and  rectify 
the  visible,  teaching  men  to  live  as  they  may  with 
God  and  as  they  ought  with  one  another,  the  best 
that  can  be  conceived  for  mankind  will  be  in  his 
hands.  And  Jesus  is  the  Great  Teacher,  and  his 
mission  covers  the  whole  field,  and  the  ideal  that  he 
seeks  is  the  perfect  life  in  ethics  and  in  religion. 

However  freely  it  is  recognized  that  Jesus  is  a 
teacher  of  ethics,  the  fact  is  larger  than  it  has  been 
commonly  supposed  to  be.  If  a  reader  of  the  Gospels 
will  notice  how  large  a  part  of  his  recorded  teaching 
relates  to  what  men  ought  to  be  and  do,  and  how 
small  a  part  to  anything  else,  the  result  may  be  sur- 
prising. By  far  the  larger  part  is  ethical  teaching 
as  here  defined.  Of  abstract  truth  he  uttered  very 
little,  and  of  truth  non-moral  in  its  bearings,  none. 
He  was  a  teacher  of  what  men  ought  to  be  and  do. 

Yet  Jesus  differs  utterly  from  teachers  of  the  science 
of  ethics.  Of  their  methods  and  problems  he  knows 
nothing.     He  says  nothing  about  the  absolute  ground 


THE   IDEAL  AND   THE   METHOD  21 

of  morality.  He  does  not  discuss  the  philosophy 
of  conduct  or  character.  He  pays  no  attention  to 
ethical  problems  as  problems,  or  shows  that  he  ever 
thought  of  them.  He  puts  forth  no  Hst  of  things  per- 
mitted and  forbidden,  and  makes  no  suggestions 
about  deciding  obscure  cases  of  conscience.  The 
teaching  of  his  time  and  country  abounded  in  ethical 
hair-spHtting,  but  nothing  of  the  kind  can  be  charged 
to  him.  He  enters  into  no  fine  detail  of  ethical  coun- 
sel, nor  does  he  enter  the  region  of  comprehensive 
theory.  Systems  of  Christian  ethics,  simple  or  elab- 
orate, have  been  formed  by  his  follow^ers,  but  none 
did  he  construct.  If  Christians  will  have  a  system 
founded  on  his  teaching,  they  must  make  it — he 
gave  them  none. 

When  we  turn  to  speak  of  Jesus  as  a  teacher  in 
religion,  we  make  no  real  transition.  With  him  each 
subject  pervades  the  other.  If  he  spoke  much  of 
what  men  ought  to  be  and  do,  he  spoke  always  in  the 
presence  of  God,  and  regarded  all  life  of  men  as  lived 
there.  From  that  realm  he  brought  motives  into 
the  realm  of  ethics.  But  apart  from  the  application 
of  the  great  reality  to  their  moral  life,  Jesus  taught 
men  of  the  God  to  whom  they  were  bound  by  a  vital 
tie,  of  the  character  that  he  bears,  of  his  heart  toward 
them,  of  his  care  over  them,  of  the  outpouring  of  his 
heart  to  them  in  grace.  He  made  men  feel  that  it 
was  the  height  of  privilege  for  them  to  live  with  the 
God  and  Father  whom  he  revealed;  and  by  a  power 
all  his  own  he  brought  men  into  the  actual  living  of 
that  life  in  God.     Thus  he  was  the  Great  Teacher 


22  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

in  religion.  Yet,  in  religion  as  in  ethics,  he  was  no 
teacher  of  the  science.  He  never  discussed  or  ex- 
pounded religion,  and  took  no  position  as  a  theolo- 
gian. The  problems  of  rehgion,  as  modern  men  call 
them,  had  no  place  with  him.  Doctrines  he  neither 
stated  nor  discussed.  In  rehgion  as  in  ethics,  the 
teaching  of  his  time  was  full  of  orthodox  formality, 
but  he  never  formalized.  Neither  in  fine  detail  nor 
in  elaborate  theory  did  he  teach  rehgion.  His  prin- 
ciples in  rehgion  are  quite  ascertainable,  and  stand 
forth  in  a  splendid  unity,  but  no  system  of  doctrines 
or  scheme  of  rehgious  observances  did  he  hand  to 
his  disciples  or  bequeath  to  us.  Here  again,  if  his 
followers  required  a  system  they  must  make  it  for 
themselves.  It  is  worth  while  to  remember  that 
Jesus  was  a  layman;  and  as  he  was  neither  a  priest 
nor  a  rabbi  in  the  old  faith,  so  he  was  neither  the 
head  of  a  cult  nor  the  formulator  of  a  system  in  the 
new. 

His  manner  of  going  about  the  work  of  his  life  was 
the  simplest  and  most  natural  that  we  can  imagine. 
His  general  manner  was  so  informal  that  we  can 
hardly  call  it  a  method,  but  if  we  call  it  so,  it  was  the 
practical  method.  What  he  taught  of  ethics  and 
rehgion  we  learn  from  the  impression  that  he  made, 
and  makes,  through  life  and  words.  If  we  watch 
him,  we  find  him  teaching  ethics  and  religion  together 
all  the  time,  by  the  same  life  and  words.  This  blend- 
ing of  the  two  was  the  glory  of  his  work  among  men: 
in  him  religion  and  ethics  met  together,  and  kissed 


THE   IDEAL  AND   THE  METHOD  23 

each  other,  and  his  expression  of  them  to  the  world 
was  as  natural  to  him  as  breathing. 

Living  among  men,  he  taught  them  by  example. 
His  life  shows  his  ideal,  for  it  lets  us  know  what  he 
loved  and  hated,  what  he  approved  and  condemned. 
His  avoidance  and  omission  of  sin  in  his  own  life 
set  his  visible  condemnation  upon  the  common  evil, 
and  his  daily  virtue  showed  his  heart  set  upon  the 
perfect  goodness.  As  for  his  ruling  motive  in  all  this, 
he  hved  as  a  man  with  God,  and  his  reference  and 
deference  to  his  Father  in  all  things  showed  men 
where  to  find  inspiration  for  fidelity  and  holiness. 
That  is  to  say,  his  own  life  in  religion  fed  the  springs 
of  noble  ethics.  His  self-sacrificing  spirit  set  a  higher 
key  for  Hfe  than  men  had  known,  and  his  heroic  self- 
assertion  gave  new  beauty  to  his  self-sacrifice;  but 
both  self-sacrifice  and  self-assertion  were  inspired  by 
loyalty  to  the  will  of  his  Father.  His  unswervingly 
high  aim,  always  refusing  to  yield  or  temporize,  was 
a  supreme  example  in  the  highest  style  of  life,  but 
its  springs  were  in  love  and  reverence  for  God.  His 
example  in  the  ethical  life  is  a  social  example  as  well 
as  an  individual  one,  for  what  example  in  social  prac- 
tice can  compare  with  his  devotion  to  the  good  of 
men  ?  But  in  this  he  was  doing  the  will  of  God  and 
acting  in  the  spirit  of  his  kingdom.  And  as  to  the 
manner  in  which  the  high  ethical  result  was  wrought 
out  in  his  actual  life,  we  can  watch  the  play  of  pur- 
pose and  temptation  in  his  career,  and  see  how  faith 
in  God  and  faithfulness  to  his  will  won  the  victory. 
In  the  study  of  his  hfe  it  is  given  to  us  to  watch  Jesus 
advancing  to  the  realization  of  his  own  ideal. 


■♦l. 


24  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

Not  that  Jesus  was  planning  or  intending  to  frame 
an  example  adapted  to  the  instruction  of  men,  and 
deliberately  constructed  his  life  accordingly.  He  was 
not  a  moral  artist,  but  a  moral  agent.  He  was  simply 
Hving  the  human  hfe  in  genuine  simplicity,  unspoiled 
by  self-consciousness  or  self-exhibition,  putting  into 
daily  action  the  spirit  which  is  the  secret  of  all  good 
living  before  God  and  man.  His  own  hfe  was  the 
ideal  life  in  respect  of  simple  naturalness. 

Living  among  men,  he  taught  them  also  by  the  liv- 
ing word.  We  possess  only  fragments  of  his  utter- 
ance, and  long  for  more,  but  we  are  sure  that  we  have 
enough  to  show  us  what  he  stood  for.  Not  that  he 
was  planning  a  definite  course  of  instruction  for  men: 
he  was  more  natural  than  that.  His  instruction  from 
day  to  day  was  simply  intended  to  help  men,  and 
make  them  better.  Taking  men  where  he  found 
them,  he  sought  to  make  better  human  beings  of 
them,  in  their  relations  with  their  Father  and  their 
fellows.  In  this  practical  effort  his  method  was 
wholly  informal.  He  taught  no  school,  and  had  no 
set  time  or  place  to  speak,  but  had  all  seasons  for  his 
own.  Never  did  he  speak  a  professional  word:  he 
was  no  professional  man.  He  was  always  uncon- 
ventional, living  and  walking  with  men,  and  talking 
freely  with  them  as  occasions  arose.  The  occasions 
came  unforced,  springing  naturally  out  of  human 
affairs,  or  suggested  at  his  own  impulse.  Passing 
events  gave  him  texts.  Often  he  drew  illustration 
from  the  realm  of  nature,  and  oftener  from  human 
affairs  and  relations  of  man  with  man.  Back  of  all 
his  utterances  lay  his  eager  fellowship  with  men  and 


THE  IDEAL  AND  THE  METHOD  25 

his  unfailing  consciousness  of  God.  In  the  various 
occasions  of  speech  he  uttered  some  word  which  it 
was  right  and  normal  for  men  to  act  upon,  and  thus, 
the  more  powerfully  because  so  naturally,  he  rein- 
forced the  vital  quahty  both  in  ethics  and  in  religion. 
We  are  not  surprised  to  find  that  this  teaching  from 
day  to  day  concerned  itself  always  with  the  case  in 
hand.  He  did  not  go  out  of  his  way  to  make  occa- 
sions, but  gave  immediate  attention  only  to  such  mat- 
ters as  he  met,  and  spoke  always  the  word  for  the 
hour.  He  did  not  offer  to  his  hearers  instruction 
that  did  not  apply  to  them,  or  extend  his  discourse 
for  the  sake  of  completing  the  subject.  There  is 
no  indication  that  he  contemplated  a  universal  treat- 
ment of  ethics  or  religion,  or  was  planning  to  cover  all 
the  ground.  He  did  not  give  forth  instruction  that 
would  come  into  effect  only  in  distant  ages  and  under 
new  conditions.  Accordingly  we  are  not  to  look  to 
him  for  teaching  on  all  subjects,  either  in  ethics 
or  in  religion — a  lesson  that  Christians  might  have 
learned  long  ago  to  their  great  advantage.  There 
are  many  practical  questions  of  great  importance  that 
had  not  come  into  existence  when  he  spoke;  and  upon 
these  he  bore  no  testimony,  except  by  giving  utter- 
ance to  principles  that  would  apply  to  them  when 
they  arose.  He  did  not  even  touch  upon  all  the 
urgent  moral  issues  of  his  own  day;  and  of  religious 
issues  that  are  peculiar  to  our  day  certainly  he  took 
no  cognizance.  So  we  may  be  sure  that  we  cannot 
expect  to  receive  from  his  hands  a  full  text-book  of 
directions  for  the  modern  life. 


26  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

But  we  receive  from  him  what  is  far  better  than 
a  text-book  of  practical  details.  Concerning  the 
temporal  application  of  eternal  truth,  Jesus  is  the 
supreme  teacher.  He  is  the  supreme  inspirer  too; 
indeed,  it  seems  too  little  to  call  him  teacher,  when 
his  great  work  was  the  imparting  of  spiritual  power. 
He  knew  the  eternal  realities  that  give  significance  to 
our  present  Hfe,  and  he  lived  in  order  to  bear  witness 
to  them  and  bring  them  to  their  due  effect.  He 
knew  that  there  is  no  incongruity,  as  men  often 
imagine  that  there  is,  between  the  eternal  and  the 
temporal,  the  profound  and  the  practical,  the  divinely 
great  and  the  humanly  commonplace.  He  perceived 
that  the  actual  grounds  of  duty  in  every  field  and  at 
every  fireside  are  spiritual  and  eternal,  and  that  the 
commonest  life  needs  the  highest  inspiration.  There- 
fore he  brought  the  everlasting  realities  into  their 
normal  connection  with  the  ordinary  day's  work. 
He  showed  what  men  should  be  and  do  in  view  of 
those  relations  to  God  and  their  fellows  which  take 
hold  on  eternity.  Thus  it  was  that  he  exhibited 
ethics  and  religion  as  woven  together.  He  grounded 
the  earthly  morals  in  heaven,  and  brought  heaven 
into  the  earthly  morals.  He  suffused  morality  with 
rehgion:  he  attached  every  fibre  of  the  human  life  to 
God.  He  made  men  feel  that  wherever  duty  meets 
them,  or  moral  opportunity,  there  God  looks  them 
in  the  face.  In  fact,  of  his  teaching,  ethics  is  the  body 
and  religion  is  the  soul;  it  was  devoted  to  making 
men  what  they  ought  to  be,  and  it  was  endowed  with 
life  by  the  breath  of  God. 


THE   IDEAL  AND  THE   METHOD  27 

In  this  union  we  behold  his  ideal,  of  ethics  and 
religion  in  one.  From  this  we  are  not  to  infer, 
however,  that  there  is  no  ground  for  a  sound 
doctrine  of  ethics  apart  from  religion.  From  the 
first  age  of  human  existence  the  world  has  had  its 
ethics,  because  men  had  their  mutual  relations,  out 
of  which  duties  inevitably  sprang.  If  we  knew 
nothing  of  God,  we  should  still  owe  duties  to  our  fel- 
lows, and  be  under  moral  obligations  to  them  and  to 
ourselves.  No  more  than  rehgion  did  ethics  wait 
for  its  birth  until  Jesus  came.  He  found  them  both 
in  the  world,  but  for  ages  they  had  been  scarcely  more 
than  loosely  joined  together.  They  had  been  draw- 
ing toward  a  closer  unity  before  he  appeared.  But 
he  revealed  them  as  simply  two  aspects  or  sides  of  the 
one  life  of  man,  and  proclaimed  that  vital  oneness 
in  which  they  are  inseparable  and  coeternal.  In 
this  unity  consisted  his  ideal,  and  the  true  ideal 
of  humanity. 

With  this  conception  of  his  purpose  and  quality, 
we  do  not  wonder  that  Jesus  is  not  an  argumentative 
teacher.  He  could  not  be.  How  unlike  he  is  to 
Socrates  the  convincer!  He  is  the  great  proclaimer 
of  eternal  truth.  Accordingly  his  teaching  is  morally 
axiomatic  and  self-evidencing.  He  does  not  defend 
it.  If  men  reject  it,  it  is  not  because  his  reasoning 
does  not  convince  them,  it  is  because  the  teaching 
itself  does  not  appeal  to  them.  Recognition  is  what 
it  asks,  and  acceptance  as  true.  Its  success  con- 
sists in  winning  its  way,  so  that  men  acknowledge  it 
and  give  it  the  place  of  truth  in  their  life.     If  his 


28  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

ethical  teaching  ever  seems  to  fail,  it  is  because  it  has 
not  been  understood,  or  because  men  are  below  its 
level,  or  because  it  has  been  carried  into  new  condi- 
tions without  the  adaptations  that  his  wisdom  would 
make.  If  his  religious  teaching  ever  seems  to  fail, 
it  is  because  men  have  not  had  the  moral  power  and 
Hberty  to  discern  it  truly  for  what  it  is,  and  to  make 
it  rightly  their  own.  When  his  ideal  is  discerned  as 
ideals  are  designed  to  be,  not  as  a  fixed  law  but  as 
an  inspiring  perfection,  it  will  be  seen  to  be  simply 
the  eternal  good. 

The  descriptive  word  that  stands  at  the  head  of  this 
chapter  must  be  unfolded.  It  is  that  the  method  of 
Jesus  in  making  his  ideal  known  is  one  that  is  adapted 
to  bring  to  pass  a  strong  and  independent  possession 
of  the  character  in  which  it  consists.  This  means 
that  he  was  a  character-builder,  who  counted  upon 
making  his  ideal  more  than  a  mere  idea,  and  im- 
planting it  as  a  force.  He  was  a  maker  of  manhood. 
He  taught  personality  to  direct  itself  from  within. 
His  ideal  was  the  prophetic  ideal  of  the  new  covenant, 
set  forth  by  Jeremiah  and  quoted  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  according  to  which  the  law  of  God  was 
to  be  written  upon  the  heart.  Both  the  standard  and 
the  inspiration  of  the  right  life  were  to  be  within. 

We  see  this  illustrated  in  the  fact  that  his  teaching 
dealt  scarcely  at  all  with  anything  like  rules  of  con- 
duct, but  took  the  more  searching  and  helpful  form 
of  principles.  This  fact  is  vital  in  our  study. 
Working  by  rules  was  vastly  overdone  in  his  day. 


L 


THE   IDEAL  AND   THE   METHOD  29 

and  the  futility  of  the  method  was  daily  proved 
before  his  eyes.  The  law  as  a  system  of  rules 
was  defeating  itself.  His  idea  of  the  way  to  bring 
in  right  living  was  very  different  from  that  of 
law.  He  knew  that  the  working  power  must  be 
within.  He  would  lead  men  to  act  upon  sound 
principles  out  of  a  free  heart,  to  give  glad  exercise  to 
good  affections,  and  thus  to  be  genuine  doers  of  the 
work  for  which  they  were  created.  This  could  not 
be  done  by  rule:  it  required  education  of  the  man. 
His  training  could  not  take  the  form  of  an  external 
discipline:  it  must  be  personal,  inward,  flexible,  sug- 
gestive, transforming.  It  is  very  true  that  Christians 
have  often  understood  Jesus  to  be  a  lawgiver,  and 
taken  Christianity  for  a  new  law  imposed  by  him, 
better  than  the  old  but  nevertheless  a  law.  He  could 
scarcely  be  more  profoundly  misunderstood.  He  was 
not  a  lawgiver,  but  a  revealer,  an  enlightener,  a 
renewer,  an  awakener  of  motives  and  a  mover  of 
men.  It  is  insufficient  even  to  describe  him  as  a 
teacher — how  much  more  as  a  lawgiver!  He  was 
an  inspirer,  a  creator  of  ideals,  a  deliverer  from 
spiritual  limitations,  a  vivifier  of  souls,  a  breather  of 
power  to  fulfil  the  ideals  that  he  created. 

I  think  it  will  be  worth  while  to  study  some  say- 
ings of  Jesus  that  illustrate  this  practice  of  his,  of 
teaching  by  principles  rather  than  by  rules.  The 
passages  that  I  shall  quote  will  do  something  more 
than  confirm  the  method;  they  will  help  us  to  see 
in  what  manner  he  put  it  in  exercise. 


30  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

In  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  according  to  Matthew, 
in  the  discourse  that  is  associated  with  the  choice 
of  the  apostles  according  to  Luke,  Jesus  speaks  in 
close  connection  of  two  topics  that  to  a  casual  reader 
might  seem  not  to  have  very  much  in  common.  They 
are  Retaliation  and  Generosity.  The  order  of  utter- 
ance is  not  quite  the  same  in  the  two  reports,  and  in 
the  Third  Gospel  the  movement  of  speech  is  more 
rapid  and  eager  than  in  the  First,  and  the  exhor- 
tation is  in  greater  detail:  yet  the  two  are  essen- 
tially alike  in  their  teaching. 

The  Old  Testament  gives  its  sanction  to  revenge: 
there  "An  eye  for  an  eye,  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth'' 
was  permissible  retaHation.  Cruel  as  this  may  seem 
to  us,  it  was  really,  in  its  origin,  a  limitation  upon 
an  ancient  privilege.  Private  revenge  was  an  out- 
growth of  immemorial  tribal  revenge,  and  once  had 
free  scope,  but  now  the  law  restricted  retaliation  to 
equality,  an  eye  for  an  eye  and  a  tooth  for  a  tooth, 
but  no  more:  and  even  this  was  under  the  super- 
vision of  the  law,  and  the  injured  man  was  answer- 
able for  observing  the  limitation.  But  now  Jesus, 
with  his  "I  say  unto  you,"  declares  that  even  this 
amount  of  retaliation  must  be  given  up.  The  whole 
matter  is  to  be  left  to  that  past  time  to  which  it  be- 
longs. No  retaliation  at  all,  he  says,  and  no  resist- 
ance to  the  evil  man:  on  the  contrary,  all  manner  of 
good  is  to  be  done  to  the  doer  of  harm.  Enemies  are 
to  be  loved,  and  generosity  without  stint  is  to  be 
poured  out  upon  those  who  have  never  earned  any 
such  thing.     The  demand  is  so  absolute  and  far- 


THE  IDEAL  AND  THE  METHOD  31 

reaching  as  often  to  be  condemned  as  extravagant. 
Not  only  is  blessing  to  be  returned  for  cursing,  and 
prayer  for  persecution,  which  might  be  taken  as  a 
matter  for  the  inward  spirit:  there  are  outward  acts 
as  well,  and  these  are  described  without  mercy,  with 
no  reservation  at  all  on  account  of  their  tremendous 
difficulty.  If  you  receive  a  blow  on  your  cheek, 
turn  the  other  to  be  struck;  to  the  man  who  sues  you 
for  one  garment,  give  two;  if  impressed  into  service 
to  go  a  mile,  go  two  miles;  refuse  no  one  who  wishes 
to  borrow;  ask  not  again  the  goods  that  some  one 
takes  away;  lend  without  hope  of  return;  give  with- 
out measure.  In  Luke  the  Golden  Rule,  given  else- 
where in  Matthew,  is  woven  in  in  the  midst  of  this 
call  to  limitless  generosity,  and  in  both  versions  the 
appeal  is  grounded  in  the  example  of  God,  who  acts 
thus  himself. 

No  wonder  that  this  teaching  is  difficult.  It  has 
usually  been  assumed  that  these  sayings  were  rules, 
or  something  near  to  rules,  and  all  the  difficulties  of 
literal  obedience  have  sprung  at  once  into  sight. 
How  can  human  nature  be  expected  to  act  in  this 
manner  ?  and  if  we  did,  what  would  be  the  result  I 
This  reads  like  a  demand  for  undiscriminating  con- 
duct, in  which  the  normal  use  of  reason,  judgment, 
common  sense,  shall  be  dispensed  with.  Experi- 
ence seems  to  show,  too,  that  such  undiscriminating 
generosity  is  not  true  kindness.  It  is  alleged  that 
unflinching  obedience  to  these  counsels  would  be 
disastrous  to  society,  and  not  only  to  its  selfish  in- 
terests but  to  its  real  welfare.     However  that  may  be, 


32  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

it  is  certain  that  only  a  few  of  the  followers  of  Jesus 
have  been  thoroughly  convinced  that  it  would  be 
wise  to  act  thus  or  that  it  is  their  duty  to  do  so,  and 
fewer  still  have  consistently  tried  to  follow  these 
counsels.  Here  Christendom,  whether  it  has  re- 
jected the  spirit  of  the  Master  or  not,  has  plainly 
parted  company  with  his  written  language. 

But  the  matter  appears  in  a  different  Hght  if  we 
drop  the  idea  of  rules  and  look  at  the  principle 
that  is  involved  in  these  directions  about  retaliation 
and  generosity.  Compare  the  principle  that  dictates 
retaliation,  and  produces  it  too,  with  the  one  that 
Jesus  would  have  us  substitute  for  it.  The  working 
principle  of  retaliation  is  that  the  fault  or  sin  of  the 
other  man  is  to  determine  what  I,  whom  he  has 
injured,  am  to  do  to  him.  Has  he  harmed  me  intoler- 
ably .?  That  makes  me  wish  to  kill  him.  But  no, 
the  law  says,  you  may  not  kill  him,  for  that  would  go 
beyond  his  injury  to  you;  but  you  may  be  even  with 
him,  and  do  him  as  much  harm  as  he  has  done  to 
you.  So  if  he  has  put  out  my  eye  or  knocked  out  my 
tooth,  his  eye  or  his  tooth  is  mine  to  take.  It  is 
not  I  that  decide  to  do  injury  to  his  body;  he  has 
decided  it  for  me  by  harming  me.  Because  he  has 
been  a  violent  man  toward  me,  I  am  to  be  violent 
also.  I  am  to  do  as  I  am  done  by,  and  become 
like  the  evil  man.  But  when  we  listen  to  the  voice  of 
Jesus,  we  are  told  exactly  to  reverse  this  movement. 
Our  Master,  high-minded  and  true,  says,  in  effect, 
Do  not  permit  another  man's  wrong-doing  to  deter- 
mine what  you  shall  do.     Decide  it  yourself.     When 


THE   IDEAL  AND  THE   METHOD  33 

you  have  been  wronged,  let  your  own  better  heart 
determine  your  conduct.  One  man's  moral  and 
practical  attitude  toward  another  ought  not  to  be 
dictated  by  that  other  man's  enmity  or  abuse.  How 
shall  it  be  decided  whether  you  are  to  love  or  hate 
a  hostile  man — whether  you  are  to  pour  out  upon  him 
deeds  of  kindness  or  deeds  of  injury  .f*  **He  has 
decided  it,"  clamors  the  revengeful  heart.  But  no: 
it  shall  not  be  so  among  you.  In  spite  of  him,  take 
the  matter  into  your  own  hands.  Settle  it  yourself, 
by  the  exercise  of  your  divinest  affection.  No  matter 
how  hard  and  provoking  the  case  is,  give  him  a  love 
that  he  has  never  given  you,  and  show  him  kind- 
ness that  his  heart  knows  nothing  of.  A  blow  has 
been  struck  in  anger,  and  has  fallen  on  your  cheek: 
now  who  shall  decide  upon  the  destination  of  a 
second  blow,  if  a  second  is  to  be  struck  ?  The  other 
man  seems  to  have  decided  for  you  that  a  second 
blow  must  fall  upon  him,  as  heavy  as  his  was;  but 
learn  not  to  let  that  decision  stand.  Decide  yourself 
that  if  a  second  blow  be  struck  it  shall  fall  upon  you, 
and  turn  your  other  cheek  to  receive  it,  rather  than 
be  governed  by  another  man's  wrong-doing.  Instead 
of  allowing  his  evil  to  be  master  of  you,  be  your  own 
master,  and  substitute  your  own  loving  heart  and 
will  completely  for  the  revengeful  spirit.  Thus  over- 
come evil  with  good. 

Jesus  would  not  claim  that  this  might  not  be  hard 
to  do,  in  this  special  case  or  in  a  hundred  others,  but 
the  clear  rightness  of  it  is  not  hard  to  see.  In  fact, 
this  is  the  plainest  and  most  axiomatic  moral  and 
Christian  counsel,  as  soon  as  we  look  upon  it  as  the 


34  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

enunciation  of  a  principle.  Nothing  better  than  this 
will  ever  be  taught  about  a  man's  attitude  toward 
those  who  have  done  him  wrong,  and  the  applications 
of  the  principle  are  without  number. 

As  for  the  extreme  and  paradoxical  form  in  which 
the  principle  is  expressed,  it  throws  the  strongest 
emphasis  on  the  principle  itself.  Apparently  the 
expression  is  made  so  intense  in  order  to  get  this 
emphasis  at  the  strongest.  I  have  expounded  one 
example,  but  the  others  teach  the  same  lesson.  From 
retahation  Jesus  passes  at  once  to  generosity,  for  the 
two  illustrate  the  same  principle.  So  does  submis- 
sion to  wrong,  which  comes  in  also.  In  all  these 
matters  his  counsel  is,  in  effect.  Swing  clear  over  to 
the  other  side.  Submit  to  what  is  unreasonable,  he 
says,  rather  than  do  a  selfish  or  revengeful  deed. 
Live  out  the  generous  temper;  trample  selfishness 
under  foot,  and  make  generosity  the  law  of  your  life. 
Always  remind  yourself  that  it  is  difficult  to  carry 
that  temper  too  far.  Do  not  be  afraid  of  overdoing 
it,  for  there  is  far  more  danger  of  underdoing  it. 
These  extreme  words  about  giving  without  hmit 
and  lending  without  hope,  that  seem  so  far  beyond 
the  Hmit  of  the  practicable,  are  apparently  intended 
to  drive  this  wholesome  principle  sharply  home. 
And  if  we  look  at  the  clear  principle  of  the  commands 
rather  than  at  their  paradoxical  form,  we  shall  have 
no  difficulty  with  them — except  the  difficulty  of  attun- 
ing our  hearts  to  so  high  an  ideal. 

The  ideal  is  traced  to  a  source  higher  than  man. 
We  must  add  that  the  appeal  against  revenge  and 
in  favor  of  broad  helpfulness  is  grounded  in  the  duty 


THE   IDEAL  AND   THE  METHOD  35 

and  privilege  of  likeness  to  the  heavenly  Father. 
Jesus  reminds  his  hearers  that  no  evil  in  men  dom- 
inates God,  so  as  to  defeat  or  obscure  his  grace  in 
his  dealings  with  them.  In  God  there  is  no  retalia- 
tion, and  no  hatred  of  those  v^ho  hate  him.  He  is 
kind  to  the  unthankful  and  evil:  he  gives  his  sun 
and  rain  alike  to  just  and  unjust.  Thus  the  example 
of  his  providence  supports  the  lesson  that  has  just 
been  taught,  for  the  sinfulness  of  men  does  not  deter- 
mine what  he  does  toward  them.  It  is  his  own  heart 
that  decides  that  question,  and  it  is  a  heart  of  patient 
and  forgiving  love  that  waits  to  bless.  Men  who 
imitate  him  in  this  shall  have  the  incomparable  re- 
ward of  being  his  sons.  They  are  beginning  to  bear 
his  character  in  the  true  filial  way,  and  it  is  their 
destiny  to  be  perfect  even  as  he  is  perfect  in  the  un- 
selfish grace,  a  destiny  toward  which  it  is  their  duty 
and  glory  every  day  to  strive.  Thus  do  ethics  and 
religion  shine  out  together  in  the  Master's  ideal. 
Sound  and  sweet  morahty  in  the  every-day  relation 
between  man  and  man  is  recognized  as  the  true  sign 
of  the  filial  relation  to  the  eternal  God. 

There  could  be  no  better  illustration  than  this  of 
the  character  of  the  Master's  influence.  He  was  not 
telling  men  what  to  do,  as  the  law  had  done;  he  was 
awakening  them  to  a  sense  of  what  they  should  do 
and  why  they  should  do  it.  He  was  training  them 
not  for  obedience  to  commandments  but  for  free  do- 
ing of  the  will  of  God.  So  he  did  not  hamper  them 
by  precepts,  but  reinforced  them  with  principles.  It 
was  not  that  he  wished  a  man  always  to  turn  the 


36  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

other  cheek;  he  wished  him  to  have  inteUigent  self- 
mastery  in  righteousness  and  love.  Of  course  this 
is  the  only  w^y  in  which  a  great  ideal  of  life  and 
character  can  be  actually  imparted.  An  ideal  is 
nothing  until  it  is  an  inward  thing,  possessing  the 
heart;  and  in  these  paradoxical  sayings  Jesus  was 
offering  the  ideal  of  strong  self-mastery  and  will  to 
bless.  So  it  is  of  little  consequence  whether  the 
paradoxical  commands  as  they  stand  are  practicable 
or  not.  The  principle  that  they  embody  is  practi- 
cable in  a  thousand  forms. 

We  have  to  own  that  Christendom  has  failed  to  rise 
to  the  Master's  principle  here,  but  the  chief  evidence 
to  that  effect  does  not  reside  in  its  omission  of  the 
particular  things  that  are  here  commanded.  The 
failure  lies  in  the  prevaihng  temper  of  life.  The  spirit 
that  dictated  the  code  of  honor,  according  to  which 
insults  must  be  avenged,  has  not  become  extinct  in 
men  or  nations,  and  the  spirit  of  love  that  inspires 
free  and  wise  generosity  has  not  fully  come  in.  As 
to  the  manner  in  which  the  better  spirit  is  to  do  its 
work  when  it  comes,  these  counsels  of  Jesus  are  not 
rules,  they  are  suggestions  and  illustrations.  Rules 
he  could  not  give  for  such  a  work,  for  rules  must 
always  accord  with  conditions,  and  conditions  vary 
from  age  to  age.  What  he  has  done  is  to  encour- 
age the  spirit  itself,  by  which  alone  the  ideal  can  be 
fumiled. 

There  is  a  case  in  which  Christendom  has  almost 
entirely  departed  from  obedience  to  a  plain  and  direct 


THE   IDEAL  AND   THE   METHOD  37 

imperative  of  Jesus;  and  the  fact  is  very  suggestive 
with  reference  to  his  method  of  teaching.  In  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  he  quoted  from  the  old  law, 
which  said,  **Thou  shalt  not  forswear  thyself,  but 
shalt  perform  unto  the  Lord  thy  oaths."  This  meant 
that  the  oath  was  to  be  held  sacred,  and  the  word  was 
to  be  kept,  or  the  promise  performed,  as  a  duty 
owed  to  God.  "But  I  say  unto  you,"  said  Jesus, 
"Swear  not  at  all." 

For  the  understanding  of  this  of  course  the  sur- 
rounding facts  must  yield  their  light.  An  oath  is  an 
appeal  to  God  in  confirmation  of  something  said, 
whether  in  affirmation  or  in  promise.  The  practice 
of  such  appeal  grew  up  when  institutions  were  ill- 
developed,  and  each  man  had  to  look  out  as  best  he 
could  for  the  fulfilment  of  promises  that  were  made 
to  him.  The  appeal  to  God  was  a  safeguard,  first 
required  of  the  promiser  and  afterward  volunteered 
by  him.  In  late  Judaism  such  appeals  to  God  could 
not  be  called  necessary,  but  they  continued,  and  were 
in  great  vogue.  A  great  system  of  oaths  had  grown 
up,  which  corresponded  well  to  the  methods  of  a 
formal  religion,  but  was  harmful  to  spiritual  relig- 
ion. To  avoid  the  solemnity  of  the  appeal,  any 
sacred  thing  was  substituted  for  the  name  of  God. 
Thus  oaths  became  light  and  vain,  the  appeal  to 
God  was  degraded,  and  sanctity  went  out  of  holy 
things. 

In  the  presence  of  such  facts  Jesus  said,  "Swear 
not  at  all."  On  another  occasion,  as  we  read,  he 
analyzed  the  current  practice  of  swearing   and    de- 


38  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

nounced  the  various  evils  that  entered  into  it.  But 
we  must  not  fail  to  note  that  in  connection  v^ith  this 
prohibition  he  gave  a  reason  for  it,  and  a  very  plain 
one.  Swearing,  he  said,  ought  to  be  superfluous. 
When  a  man  speaks,  his  Yes  and  No  ought  to  be 
enough,  and  whatever  goes  beyond  this  simple  af- 
firmation "  Cometh  of  evil."  It  was  only  because  of 
the  evil  of  untruthfulness  among  men  that  an  oath 
was  ever  deemed  necessary.  Oaths  would  not  be 
here  if  the  kingdom  of  evil  were  not  in  the 
world.  Live  without  them,  he  says,  for  in  so  far  as 
men  are  what  they  ought  to  be  there  is  no  need  of 
them. 

This  is  an  absolute  imperative,  and  the  prohibition 
of  oaths  and  swearing  seems  unmistakable.  But  it 
has  not  generally  been  taken  to  be  an  unconditional 
prohibition,  or  if  it  has,  little  obedience  has  followed. 
It  stands  written  as  a  command  of  Jesus,  and  is  freely 
quoted  as  such,  but  it  has  long  been  allowed  to  be  a 
dead  letter.  With  the  exception  of  the  people  called 
Friends,  and  a  few  besides.  Christians  do  not  refuse 
to  swear  to  testimony  that  they  bear  in  court,  or  to 
take  the  oath  of  oflSce  or  of  allegiance  to  government 
when  it  is  required  of  them.  Into  the  oath  of  alle- 
giance, indeed,  the  warmest  religious  sentiment 
sometimes  goes.  How  is  this  ?  Are  the  followers  of 
Jesus  in  agelong  disobedience  to  a  command  that  he 
meant  for  them  all  ?  or  may  we  say  that  this  is 
something  else  than  a  rule  ^ 

We  have  some  instructive  facts  that  bear  on  the 
scope  of  the  command.     If  we  may  trust  the  record 


THE   IDEAL  AND   THE   METHOD  39 

in  the  First  Gospel,  Jesus  himself  responded  to  an 
oath.  In  his  trial  he  stood  silent  before  the  Jewish 
court  under  false  testimony,  but  when  the  high-priest 
said,  "I  swear  thee  by  the  living  God  that  thou  tell 
us  whether  thou  art  the  Christ,"  he  made  answer. 
In  the  apostolic  church  there  appears  to  have  been 
no  general  understanding  that  oaths  were  forbidden 
to  Christians.  It  is  true  that  in  the  Epistle  of  James 
we  have  the  prohibition  repeated  in  the  Master's 
words,  though  not  quoted  from  him.  But  Paul  was 
not  restrained  from  the  use  of  oaths.  Twice  he  is 
recorded  to  have  taken  regular  vows  of  religious  ser- 
vice under  the  Jewish  law,  once  at  the  instigation  of 
James,  the  head  of  the  church  at  Jerusalem.  In  his 
letters  he  was  not  always  content  with  the  simple  Yes 
and  No,  but  at  various  times  vigorously  called  God 
to  witness  to  the  truth  of  his  words:  "Behold,  before 
God,  I  lie  not."  Evidently  swearing  was  not  re- 
garded as  something  that  loyalty  to  Christ  forbade. 
Neither  by  his  prohibition  nor  by  his  reason  for  it 
w^as  the  use  of  oaths  abolished,  and  this  same  condi- 
tion has  prevailed  from  then  till  now. 

Thus  from  the  earliest  times  to  the  latest  the  gen- 
eral Christian  practice  has  violated  a  plain  command 
of  Jesus,  and  yet  the  Christian  people  do  not  feel 
themselves  very  much  to  blame.  Is  this  unbelief 
and  treason,  or  is  there  some  other  fact  in  the  case  I 
What  has  Christendom  to  say  for  itself  ?  How  would 
it  defend  itself  before  its  Lord  I  Christendom  would 
probably  stand  up  for  the  oath,  not  as  the  best  thing, 
but  as  a  good.     Apparently  the  general  conscience  is 


40  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

satisfied  that  in  the  world,  as  it  has  gone,  the  govern- 
mental oath  has  been  expressive  of  a  sound  moral 
and  religious  motive,  and  has  been  on  the  whole  a 
benefit.  It  has  been  sincerely  intended  for  a  safe- 
guard to  truthfulness  and  a  protection  to  the  highest 
interests  of  society.  Probably  in  its  history  as  a  whole 
it  has  served  the  cause  of  righteousness.  The  Chris- 
tian practice  implies  a  permanent  conviction  that  if 
Jesus  were  speaking  here  and  now,  or  were  legislating 
for  all  time,  he  would  not  forbid  the  oath  of  allegiance 
to  government,  or  of  fidelity  in  oflftce,  or  of  confir- 
mation to  evidence.  The  practice  of  Christendom 
implies  the  behef  that  this  absolute  prohibition  was 
not  designed  to  go  beyond  the  conditions  in  which  it 
was  uttered. 

Nevertheless  it  is  certain  that  the  reason  that  Jesus 
gave  for  saying  "Swear  not  at  air*  is  permanently 
good.  A  man's  word  ought  to  be  so  trustworthy 
that  appeal  to  God  in  support  of  it  was  needless. 
Yes  and  No  ought  to  be  enough,  and  whatsoever  is 
more  cometh  of  evil,  just  as  he  said.  Oaths  exist 
because  men  will  lie.  That  is  to  say,  the  sound  rea- 
son that  Jesus  gave  against  the  use  of  oaths  is  a 
part  of  his  own  ideal.  His  ideal  man  is  a  truthful 
man,  whose  word  needs  no  confirmation.  His  ideal 
society  would  have  no  oaths,  because  all  had  such 
well-grounded  confidence  in  one  another  as  to  feel 
no  need  of  them.  And  yet  his  ideal  man  is  a  man 
who  can  judge  for  himself,  and  in  doubtful  circum- 
stances know  how  to  help  the  ideal  cause.  And  it  is 
certain  that  the  ideal  of  Jesus  against  the  oath  is 


THE   IDEAL  AND   THE   METHOD  41 

slowly  gaining  force  in  that  Christendom  which  has 
disregarded  the  plain  prohibition.  The  oath  is  not 
regarded  as  the  Ideal  thing,  but  as  an  imperfect  help 
to  the  good  cause.  If  a  Christian  takes  an  oath,  he 
joins  society  in  the  endeavor  to  guard  against  un- 
truthfulness, but  by  what  he  knows  to  be  an  unideal 
means.  He  may  feel  this  when  he  performs  the  act, 
and  be  aware  that  the  oath  is  something  beneath  the 
high  requirement  of  the  Christian  character.  Yet 
since  society  seems  safer  with  this  imperfect  protec- 
tion in  use,  he  yields  his  scruple  and  joins  in  its  en- 
deavor at  self-protection,  and  thinks  that  his  Master 
would  wish  him  so  to  do.  He  may  thus  be  serving 
the  Master's  own  ideal  in  the  end. 

It  is  no  small  question  that  arises  when  we  look 
at  the  imperatives  of  Jesus.  There  are  about  fifty 
words  in  the  Imperative  mood  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  There  are  many  elsewhere,  and  frequently 
the  imperative  tone  sounds  where  the  form  of  speech 
is  different.  Reverence  often  says  that  every  impera- 
tive word  of  Jesus  voices  a  command,  and  a  com- 
mand of  Jesus  is  for  all  time  and  must  be  literally 
obeyed.  We  have  no  right  to  inquire  whether  his 
commands  are  Hmited  in  any  way,  or  altered  by 
possessing  a  figurative  quality.  There  they  stand, 
and  we  have  only  to  obey  them.  But  reverence  may 
well  take  another  turn,  and  ask  what  right  we  have 
to  omit  any  reasonable  means  of  ascertaining  what 
the  words  of  Jesus  really  mean.  Why  should  we 
make  our  own  assumption  final  ?     Why  assume  that 


42  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

all  his  imperatives  were  intended  to  give  us  unchange- 
able rules  of  action  ?  Other  speakers  use  language 
variously,  and  why  not  he  as  well  ?  How  can  we 
affirm  that  he  spoke  no  words  that  belonged  to  his 
own  time  alone,  or  that  he  was  never  figurative  in 
his  speech  except  when  he  called  himself  so  ?  Why 
should  we  ignore  the  poetic  temperament  of  the 
orient  in  which  he  lived  and  spoke,  and  the  hard, 
prosaic  temperament  of  the  Occident,  which  we  bring 
to  the  interpretation  of  his  words  ?  And  how  can 
we  forget  that  back  of  all  interpretations  of  single 
sayings  must  he  the  large  principles  that  determine 
the  general  method  of  his  teaching  ? 

The  general  method  of  his  teaching  must  explain 
for  us  many  of  these  imperatives;  and  we  know  what 
the  method  was.  It  was  that  of  the  giver  of  a  great 
ideal,  who  will  guide  men  not  by  rules  but  by  prin- 
ciples. The  principle  for  us  in  the  present  matter 
is  that  we  must  read  his  imperative  words  in  the 
light  of  their  relation  to  the  ideal  which  he  is  setting 
forth.  If  we  do  this,  we  shall  find  that  they  may  serve 
his  ideal  not  in  any  single  way,  but  in  many  ways. 
His  commands  may  be  literal  or  figurative,  temporary 
or  everlasting,  and  each  may  make  its  own  contri- 
bution to  his  purpose.  Often  we  have  no  difficulty 
in  classing  them.  If  we  hear  him  say,  "  Pray  to  thy 
Father  who  is  in  secret,'*  we  perceive  at  once  that 
he  is  enforcing  his  ideal  directly,  and  means  nothing 
other  than  what  he  says.  It  is  otherwise  if  we  hear 
him  say,  "  If  thy  right  hand  make  thee  sin,  cut  it  off: 
if  thy  right  eye,  pluck  it  out  and  cast  it  from  thee." 


THE  IDEAL  AND  THE  METHOD  43 

Regarded  as  a  rule,  this  is  squarely  against  his  ideal; 
but  as  illustrating  a  principle,  it  serves  the  ideal  per- 
fectly. Jesus  could  not  mean  that  the  forfeiting  of 
a  hand  or  an  eye  would  save  a  man  from  sinning. 
Self-mutilation  would  be  futile;  but  spiritual  self- 
pruning,  the  spirit  that  would  sacrifice  anything  as 
indispensable  as  hand  or  eye  for  purity,  is  a  grace  of 
his  ideal  man. 

These  two  instances  illuminate  the  main  point. 
Jesus  was  throwing  his  ideal  out  into  the  circle  of 
humanity,  to  be  welcomed  by  men  and  made  their 
own.  Interpreters  have  often  credited  him  with  just 
one  method  of  doing  this,  the  method  of  plain  com- 
mand; but  when  we  discern  what  an  ideal  is,  we  shall 
know  that  there  are  many  other  methods.  In  giving 
his  ideal  to  men  he  would  tell  them  to  do  things  that 
all  true  souls  must  do  forever;  he  might  also  tell  them 
to  do  things  that  were  appropriate  only  to  the  con- 
ditions in  which  he  spoke;  and  he  would  doubtless 
sometimes  command  eternal  duty  in  temporary  forms, 
which  would  drop  away  after  a  time  and  leave  the 
duty  to  be  done  in  some  other  way.  All  these  ways 
would  be  natural  to  him,  and  even  necessary;  and  in 
studying  what  we  have  received  from  his  lips  it  is  for 
us  to  judge  how  any  one  of  his  imperatives  is  to  be 
classified.  Instead  of  being  irreverent  for  us  to  pass 
this  judgment,  reverence  requires  it,  since  without 
it  we  cannot  do  justice  to  his  words. 

Is  it  implied  in  this  that  some  of  the  counsels  and 
commands  of  Jesus,  in  the  form  in  which  they  stand, 
are   not  of  permanent  and   universal   force  ?     Cer- 


44  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

talnly;  and  it  is  implied  also  that  he  might  have 
commanded  differently  under  different  conditions. 
Any  teacher  would  do  that,  and  any  wise  master  of 
men.  In  other  conditions  his  great  principles  would 
necessarily  have  found  other  forms  of  expression. 
All  readers  know  that  his  teaching  was  moulded,  in 
form  and  in  substance,  too,  somewhat,  by  the  Jewish 
life  in  which  it  had  its  being.  In  Rome  or  India  his 
utterance  of  truth  would  have  been  cast  in  other 
moulds,  and  so  it  would  if  it  were  given  forth  in 
America  to-day.  In  modes  of  thought,  in  illustra- 
tions and  in  practical  adaptation,  his  teaching  would 
have  been  different  in  any  other  land  from  what  it 
was  in  Palestine,  and  in  any  other  age  from  what  it 
was  in  the  first  century.  What  he  would  have  said 
if  he  had  been  born  into  modern  conditions  we  can- 
not closely  guess,  but  two  things  we  know:  he  would 
have  held  forth  the  same  ideal  of  life,  and  he  would 
have  illustrated  and  enforced  it  in  a  manner  intelli- 
gible and  effective  in  the  time  and  place  where  it  was 
to  be  applied.  His  ideal  of  hfe  is  the  same  yesterday 
and  to-day  and  forever;  therefore  it  may  be  illus- 
trated and  applied  in  a  thousand  ways,  and  give 
birth  to  a  thousand  modes  of  life.  This  we  must 
always  remember  in  seeking  to  understand  his  words. 

This  is  the  sum  of  the  matter,  that  Jesus  wished 
to  make  God's  will  man's  own.  He  would  send  out 
disciples  who  through  communion  with  the  Father 
had  received  the  impress  of  his  nature,  and  were 
inspired  from  within  by  the  principles  that  ought  to 


THE  IDEAL  AND  THE  METHOD  45 

govern  life.  He  would  not  prefer  that  men  should  do 
right  because  he  told  them:  he  wanted  men  who 
would  do  right  without  being  told.  The  genuine 
Christian  aim  has  always  been  this,  and  the  Christly 
element  in  the  Christian  is  not  so  much  the  mind  that 
follows  directions  as  the  heart  that  directs  itself  in 
the  Christly  way. 

If  we  attempt  to  follow  Jesus  in  this  spirit,  we  shall 
know  him  as  a  larger,  wiser,  and  more  exacting  Mas- 
ter, in  proportion  as  we  appreciate  this  character  in 
his  work.  It  is  a  mistake  to  think  that  this  view  of 
him  makes  him  an  easier  Master  to  obey,  and  takes 
away  something  from  the  seriousness  of  Hfe.  It  is  far 
easier  to  obey  rules  than  principles.  To  be  loyal  to 
an  inspiration  of  holiness  requires  more  discernment 
and  moral  sense,  more  courage  and  devotion,  more 
character  and  force,  more  of  the  gift  of  God  and  the 
best  in  man,  than  any  other  ideal  of  life.  Paul  is 
a  more  exacting  prophet  than  Moses,  and  Jesus  than 
either  of  them.  It  is  a  mistake,  too,  to  imagine  that 
this  view  of  Jesus  is  something  new,  appearing  as  an 
innovation.  It  is  the  ancient  heart  of  living  Chris- 
tianity. It  is  true  that  Christianity  has  often  been  con- 
ceived as  a  law,  and  the  teaching  of  Christ  as  legisla- 
tion. The  spirit  of  legalism,  so  native  to  humanity, 
has  not  deserted  the  field  of  Christ.  Yet  the  progress 
of  Christianity  has  not  consisted  in  the  estabhshment 
of  rules  and  methods,  but  rather  in  the  unfolding  of 
principles  and  the  entrance  of  inspirations  that  make 
them  alive.  This  is  not  only  Jesus'  ideal  of  his  work; 
it  is  the  ideal  upon  which  his  church,  half  consciously 


46  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

and  half  instinctively,  has  proceeded  in  all  the  ages 
of  its  life.  It  is  not  the  old  covenant,  v^ith  law  writ- 
ten outside,  but  the  new,  with  law  written  upon  the 
heart,  that  dominates  the  true  Christendom. 


Ill 

THE  PICTURE  OF  THE  HIGH  AIM 

I  WISH  to  bring  out  various  qualities  that  enter  into 
the  ideal  of  Jesus;  but  in  leading  on  toward  this  ex- 
position I  am  moved  to  introduce  the  study  exactly 
as  his  actual  ministry  was  introduced,  by  an  illustra- 
tion of  the  ideal  that  we  are  seeking  to  discern.  He 
himself  is  the  great  illustration,  and  we  shall  be  richer 
and  wiser  for  our  purpose  if  we  first  look  at  him  in  a 
pair  of  scenes  that  show  us  the  spirit  that  made  his 
life  what  it  was.  There  is  no  better  illustration  of  the 
vital  manner  in  which  his  high  truth  was  conveyed 
from  him  to  his  first  disciples,  nor  a  more  instructive 
one  for  us  at  this  far  distance.  I  have  named  it  the 
Picture  of  the  High  Aim.  The  method  of  it  brings 
home  to  us  the  fact,  most  important  for  our  purpose, 
that  we  are  to  learn  of  no  professional  teacher.  We 
are  coming  to  an  actual  Person,  who  does  not  always 
set  himself  to  teach,  but  lives  his  lessons  in  our  sight. 
His  life  breathes  upon  us  the  spirit  of  holy  instruction. 
To  be  a  pupil  to  him  is  not  only  to  listen;  it  is  also 
to  look,  to  feel  our  way  into  the  spirit  of  what  he  said 
and  did,  to  understand  his  life.  In  himself  his  ideal 
stands  before  us. 

We  meet  the  Master  in  the  company  of  his  dis- 
ciples at  a  crisis  of  his  ministry.     The  popular  favor 

47 


48  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

that  he  had  enjoyed  was  passing,  and  he  felt  it  neces- 
sary to  prepare  for  the  dark  end  which  he  foresaw. 
Therefore  he  took  his  disciples  apart  in  a  quiet  place, 
and  subjected  them  to  the  questioning  that  would  be 
most  helpful  to  them.  He  began  by  asking,  **Who 
do  the  people  say  that  I  am  ?"  He  obtained  answers, 
but  they  were  not  of  any  deep  significance:  the  peo- 
ple had  not  taken  him  very  seriously,  or  put  any  im- 
portant estimate  upon  him.  Then  he  turned  upon 
his  friends  themselves,  with  the  demand,  **But  who 
say  ye  that  I  am  ?*'  and  in  answer  there  came  from 
Peter  the  confession,  **Thou  art  the  Christ."  To 
this  declaration  Jesus  responded  with  the  warmest 
congratulation  for  Peter:  he  had  discerned  a  fact 
that  required  such  insight  as  God  alone  could  give: 
it  was  the  Father's  revelation,  and  nothing  less,  that 
had  opened  to  him  this  truth.  But  after  this  confes- 
sion had  been  made,  the  turn  of  the  Master's  thought 
and  teaching  was  not  at  all  such  as  the  disciples 
must  have  expected.  When  his  Messiahship  was 
thus  an  acknowledged  thing,  they  would  look  eagerly 
for  signs  of  power,  and  expect  instruction  about  the 
coming  victory;  but  from  that  time  Jesus  began  to 
tell  them  that  he  must  die.  The  inspired  confession 
became  thus  the  prelude  to  sorrowful  tidings,  which 
of  course  they  could  not  understand,  or  even  take  in 
as  true,  so  dijBFerent  from  all  this  was  their  concep- 
tion of  the  Messiah's  destiny. 

In  his  incredulity,  Peter,  who  had  been  congratu- 
lated upon  receiving  the  great  confession  as  a  gift  of 
God,  began  to  protest.      **  Mercy  on  thee,  Lord,"  he 


THE  PICTURE   OF  THE  HIGH  AIM  49 

cried,  "this  shall  never  happen  to  thee."  Then  in- 
stantly there  came  from  Jesus  a  rebuke  as  terrible 
as  the  congratulation  had  been  splendid:  "Get  thee 
behind  me,  Satan;  thou  art  my  stumbling-block; 
for  thou  mindest  not  the  things  of  God,  but  the  things 
of  men."  And  then  followed  the  declaration  that 
one  who  proposed  to  follow  Jesus  must  not  consider 
himself;  he  must  accept  the  burden  that  God  laid 
upon  him,  and  hold  to  his  purpose,  even  bearing 
his  cross.  "The  things  of  God"  which  Peter  was 
Ignoring  were  the  high  aim,  devotion  to  a  cause, 
courage,  self-forgetfulness,  the  steady  consecration, 
the  purpose  Immovable.  "The  things  of  men" 
above  which  he  could  not  rise  were  the  lower  aim, 
the  worldly  standard  of  judgment  and  desire,  self- 
consideration,  fear,  shrinking  from  the  cost  of  high 
moral  endeavor,  timid  avoidance  of  the  noble  strife. 
In  his  misplaced  sympathy  he  would  even  persuade 
Jesus  to  hold  himself  back  from  sacrifice  for  his  great 
purpose.  Therefore  he  must  be  rebuked.  Jesus 
must  go  straight  on  unmoved,  and  his  followers  must 
be  taught  to  be  followers  Indeed,  never  frightened 
away  from  the  high  aim,  faithful  unto  death.  As  the 
Master,  so  must  the  disciple  be:  as  goes  the  Leader, 
so  must  go  the  follower,  undeterred  by  this  world's 
hope  or  fear,  unchangeable  In  the  purpose  of  the  holy 
kingdom. 

Jesus  had  called  Peter  Satan — a  terrible  thing  to 
do.  He  had  called  him  Satan  not  because  of  any 
general  depravity  In  his  character  or  conduct,  but 
on   account  of  one  single  position  that  Peter  had 


50  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

taken  on  that  day.  "Thou  art  my  stumbling-block," 
was  the  explanation  of  it;  that  is  to  say,  "You  are 
making  it  hard  for  me,  you  are  'blocking  the  road 
that  I  am  bound  to  take."  Peter  was  a  tempter  to 
him  and  as  a  tempter  he  ordered  Peter  away.  Here 
surely  was  a  terrible  crisis  in  the  little  circle  of  friends. 
The  Master  had  condemned  his  chief  disciple  in  the 
strongest  possible  terms,  on  the  ground  of  grave 
personal  fault  in  relation  with  himself.  This  he 
had  done  after  pronouncing  the  same  disciple  highly 
blessed  of  God.  It  was  enough  to  shatter  the  peace 
of  the  company — enough,  one  would  almost  think,  to 
shatter  the  company  itself  into  fragments. 

It  is  reasonable  to  think  that  when  Jesus  had  been 
compelled  to  do  so  terrible  a  thing  among  his  near- 
est friends,  he  was  quick  to  explain  why  it  had  been 
necessary.  We  can  scarcely  conceive  of  the  faithful 
Master  that  he  was  as  doing  otherwise.  For  the  sake 
of  every  man  among  them,  as  well  as  for  the  sat- 
isfaction of  his  own  heart,  it  was  important  that  ex- 
planation should  be  made;  and  it  was  not  difficult  to 
make.  So  I  think  it  probable  that  this  is  the  point 
in  his  intercourse  with  his  disciples  at  which  he  told 
them  the  story  of  the  Temptation  that  he  encountered 
at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry.  Of  course  he  must 
have  told  it  to  them  at  some  time.  If  a  great  intro- 
ductory struggle  occurred  when  he  was  alone  in  the 
wilderness,  any  knowledge  that  they  might  have  of 
it  must  have  been  derived  from  him.  We  cannot 
believe  that  the  story  of  the  Temptation  that  we  read 


THE   PICTURE   OF  THE  HIGH  AIM  51 

in  the  Gospels  is  an  invention,  and  if  it  was  true 
plainly  it  must  have  been  told  by  himself,  since  his 
disciples  would  have  no  other  means  of  obtaining 
it.  And  though  no  one  can  prove  that  this  was  the 
moment  at  which  it  was  told,  it  certainly  appears 
to  have  been  the  moment  in  their  fellowship  at  which 
it  would  most  naturally  come  in.  The  story  fits  the 
occasion  perfectly,  for  it  shows  why  Jesus  called  his 
disciple  by  the  dreadful  name,  and  nothing  else  could 
explain  it  so  well.  Jesus  called  Peter  Satan  because 
Peter  had  renewed  the  temptation  that  he  had  met 
and  conquered  at  the  beginning  of  his  ministry. 

It  is  a  fine  contribution  to  our  spiritual  wealth 
that  we  can  receive  the  narrative  of  the  Temptation 
in  the  wilderness  as  a  part  of  the  actual  oral  teaching 
of  Jesus  himself.  The  reason  for  so  regarding  it 
is  so  plain  as  to  preclude  all  doubt,  and  yet  most 
readers  do  not  seem  to  have  taken  to  heart  the  fact 
that  this  is  one  of  his  own  utterances.  Whether  we 
think  of  ethics  or  of  religion,  or  of  both  combined, 
the  passage  contains  fine  instruction.  The  ideal 
here  shines  before  us.  It  is  something  to  be  thank- 
ful for  if  we  can  take  this  instruction  as  given  directly 
by  Jesus  himself,  out  of  his  own  experience.  As  to 
the  manner  in  which  the  story  is  told,  we  are  certain 
that  it  is  not  literal  at  all  points.  We  may  be  sure 
that  he  put  the  experience  into  such  form,  in  teUing 
it,  that  his  friends  could  see  the  vital  meaning  of  it. 
Doubtless  there  is  something  of  the  parabolic  in  the 
mode  of  telling,  but  no  one  can  know  just  how  much. 
The  lesson  for  the  sake  of  which  he  made  this  con- 


52  THE    IDEAL    OF    JESUS 

fession  of  experience  to  them  is  plain,  and  we  shall 
waste  time  if  we  search  beyond  it,  seeking  to  under- 
stand very  much  more. 

The  temptation  that  met  Jesus  at  the  beginning 
of  his  ministry  was  neither  more  nor  less  than  the 
proposal  that  he  should  lower  his  high  aim,  abandon 
his  ideal,  and  mind  the  things  of  men  instead  of  the 
things  of  God.  The  three  temptations  have  often 
been  interpreted  as  having  to  do  with  the  personal 
relation  of  Jesus  to  his  Father,  and  significant  in 
connection  with  what  we  now  call  personal  religious 
experience:  they  all  concerned  his  own  soul.  But 
interpreters  now  more  commonly  judge,  and  more 
wisely  too,  I  think,  that  the  whole  suggestion  related 
to  the  method  and  principles  that  he  should  act  upon 
in  his  work  among  men,  then  just  opening.  Of 
course  the  two  forms  of  experience  would  coincide 
more  deeply  than  they  would  differ,  and  yet  the  dif- 
ference between  them  is  important.  If  the  more 
modern  view  is  right,  the  temptation  fell  in  not  only 
with  the  general  conditions  of  his  life,  but  with  the 
special  ones  of  the  hour.  In  actual  significance  it 
seems  to  have  been  not  so  much  the  temptation  of  a 
son  of  God — that  is,  of  any  child  living  with  the 
heavenly  Father — as  of  the  Son  of  God,  just  owned 
in  baptism  and  now  turning  his  face  toward  a  work 
among  men  in  the  Father's  name.  And  the  sugges- 
tion in  its  three  forms  was  exactly  that  of  Peter  at  a 
later  date,  namely,  that  the  Son  of  God  should  aban- 
don the  true  ideal  of  life  and  undertake  to  do  his 
work  in  easier  and  less  worthy  ways,  shaping  his 


THE  PICTURE  OF  THE  HIGH  AIM  53 

course  to  suit  his  own  comfort  or  popularity,  serving 
good  ends  by  bad  means,  minding  the  things  of  men 
and  not  the  things  of  God. 

The  first  temptation  found  Jesus  hungry  in  the 
wilderness,  and  suggested  to  him  that  he  need  not 
be  hungry,  since  he  was  the  Son  of  God.  Many 
readers  have  thought  that  by  the  "if"  he  was  tempted 
to  doubt  his  Sonship,  and  put  it  to  the  test  of  miracle- 
working  to  prove  it;  but  in  the  Greek  this  is  an  im- 
possible meaning.  "If  thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  as 
thou  art,  command  that  these  stones  become  bread." 
The  hunger  was  real,  and  so  was  the  appeal  to  it, 
and  yet  we  are  right  if  we  feel  that  in  the  temptation 
something  more  was  meant  than  was  said.  The 
satisfaction  of  one  day's  bodily  hunger  can  scarcely 
have  been  all  that  was  proposed,  for  that  would  have 
been  too  small  a  matter  for  the  occasion.  It  is  in- 
credible that  for  such  a  spirit  as  Jesus  hunger  alone 
brought  on  one  of  the  supreme  temptations  of  his 
Kfe.  The  hunger  stands  as  a  representative  fact, 
and  the  temptation  that  it  suggested  was,  "Use  thy 
power  for  thyself."  The  sense  of  a  great  calling 
among  men  was  upon  him.  The  tidings,  "The  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  at  hand,"  had  been  followed  by  the 
voice  from  heaven  sounding  in  his  soul  and  testifying, 
"Thou  art  my  beloved  Son."  There  is  mystery  in 
this  for  us,  and  we  cannot  see  what  was  passing 
through  his  mind,  but  it  is  plain  that  a  calling  had 
reached  him,  a  summons  to  a  great  leadership  among 
men.     Since  he  was  the  Son  of  God«  great  power 


54  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

must  be  his,  and  in  his  needs  he  could  serve  himself. 
Others  might  serve  him  too.  The  kings  of  the  earth 
were  expected  to  profit  by  the  pov^er  that  they  pos- 
sessed. "The  kings  of  the  Gentiles  are  called  their 
great  ones,"  and  the  lesser  ones  are  supposed  to  be 
at  their  service.  So  the  suggestion  was,  in  its  broader 
meaning,  "Be  served:  be  ministered  unto:  be  as  the 
one  that  sitteth  at  meat.  Here  in  the  wilderness, 
where  you  are  hungry,  let  the  powers  of  the  heavenly 
kingdom  wait  upon  your  needs;  and  so  throughout 
your  Hfe  be  the  recipient.  For  God's  Son  surely 
it  is  more  fitting,  and  therefore  more  blessed,  to  re- 
ceive than  to  give." 

But  the  appeal  to  self-interest  was  made  in  vain. 
Jesus  perceived  that  such  an  attitude  meant  unbelief 
in  God,  and  abandonment  of  the  due  dependence 
upon  him.  "Man  shall  not  live  by  bread  alone," 
he  answered,  quoting  from  the  ancient  testimony 
about  the  feeding  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness,  "but 
by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of 
God."  Men  are  in  God's  hands,  and  must  be  satis- 
fied with  his  appointments.  If  we  understand  Jesus 
to  have  cited  the  passage  from  Deuteronomy  in  the 
spirit  of  its  meaning  in  old  time,  he  meant,  "If  God 
says  I  am  to  be  fed  I  shall  be  fed,  while  I  look  to  him. 
Bread  is  not  all  that  I  want — I  must  have  my  bread 
from  him,  and  as  his  gift.  All  is  for  him  to  deter- 
mine. I  will  submit  myself  to  his  providence,  not 
claim  to  set  myself  above  it.  My  powers  shall  serve 
God's  kingdom,  not  myself,  and  I  will  not  demand 
to  be  treated  as  a  recipient."     Not  for  satisfaction  of 


THE  PICTURE  OF  THE  HIGH  AIM  55 

his  own  necessities  would  he  change  his  attitude  tow- 
ard God.  Not  for  his  own  advantage  would  he 
lower  the  high  aim  and  abandon  his  ideal. 

The  first  temptation  had  related  to  himself,  and 
his  own  relation  to  his  work.  The  second  had 
reference  to  his  own  people  of  Israel,  and  the  man- 
ner in  which  he  should  seek  their  favor.  Here  I 
follow  the  order  of  Matthew,  which  is  more  climactic 
than  that  of  Luke,  and  seems  more  natural:  though 
if  we  think  of  the  ideas  as  surging  in  his  mind  in  a 
real  experience,  it  does  not  matter  much  which  we 
think  of  as  coming  first.  Probably  they  all  recurred 
again  and  again  in  the  struggle,  and  were  all  united 
sometimes  in  one  great  assault. 

The  first  temptation  had  found  Jesus  hungry;  the 
second  placed  him  in  thought  upon  the  pinnacle  of 
his  Father's  temple  in  Jerusalem.  Of  course  there 
was  no  need  that  he  make  a  journey  thither,  or  be 
carried  thither  through  the  air,  as  we  used  to  think 
in  childhood,  imagining  that  we  must  be  Hteral. 
Imagination  placed  him  there,  and  that  was  enough. 
The  mission  of  God's  Son  would  be  expected  to 
centre  in  his  Father's  temple.  There  the  people  of 
Israel  were  always  present,  often  thronging.  When 
the  kingdom  came,  they  hoped  to  see  it  inaugurated 
with  mighty  signs.  Superhuman  power  was  the 
kind  of  evidence  of  God  for  which  they  looked.  If 
the  Son  of  God  were  to  cast  himself  down  in  their 
presence  from  the  height  of  the  temple,  and  be  borne 
in  safety  to  the  ground,  that  would  be  enough  for 


56  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

them — they  would  see  and  beUeve.  And  had  not 
God  himself  anticipated  that  very  act  in  the  promise 
which  the  Scriptures  recorded?  "He  shall  give  his 
angels  charge  over  thee  to  keep  thee,  and  in  their 
hands  they  shall  bear  thee  up,  lest  thou  dash  thy 
foot  against  a  stone."  Jesus  wanted  followers 
from  among  a  people  who  expected  to  yield  to  just 
such  evidence  as  this.  Must  not  one  who  seeks  a 
following  consider  what  will  appeal  to  those  whom 
he  wishes  to  win  ?  And  shall  he  not  take  advantage 
of  God's  own  promise  .f*  "Instead  of  insisting  so 
strenuously  upon  the  high  aim,  aim  where  you  can 
hit.  Make  appeals  that  the  people  of  Israel,  looking 
for  the  kingdom  of  God,  will  respond  to.  Appear 
in  your  Father's  house,  accept  his  written  promise, 
trust  his  word,  and  win  the  multitude  by  a  mighty 
miracle,  not  of  power  only  but  of  faith.  Surely  your 
Father  will  be  pleased  with  this,  and  the  people  too." 
But  in  vain  again.  The  clear  vision  of  Jesus  per- 
ceived that  such  an  act  would  not  lie  within  the  range 
of  the  divine  purpose  and  promise,  or  within  the 
field  of  his  own  right  relation  with  the  Father.  Not 
for  such  uses  was  the  promise  given,  and  not  for  such 
help  had  he  a  right  to  call.  So  his  loyal  answer  was, 
"It  is  written,  Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy 
God,  put  him  to  needless  tests,  play  with  him  as  it 
were,  call  upon  him  to  do  for  thee  inferior  things  of 
thine  own  devising.  Trust  him,  but  trust  him  within 
the  field  of  his  own  character,  and  of  his  character- 
istic work.  That  is  enough,  and  beyond  that  I  will 
not  go."     True,  the  people  of  Israel  might  be  gained 


THE  PICTURE   OF  THE  HIGH  AIM  57 

in  such  a  way,  some  of  them:  they  might  be  gained 
to  some  kind  of  leadership:  but  Jesus  would  not  seek 
them  thus,  and  would  not  offer  them  a  leadership 
that  could  be  thus  accepted.  He  would  seek  them 
only  in  ways  in  which  he  had  a  spiritual  right  to  In- 
voke his  Father's  help.  Not  for  followers  would  he 
change  his  attitude  toward  God.  Not  for  popularity 
would  he  lower  the  high  aim  and  abandon  the  ideal. 

The  third  temptation  took  hold  upon  the  relation 
of  Jesus  to  the  world.  Israel  was  not  the  whole  of 
humanity:  round  about  it  stood  the  nations,  and  of 
them  Jesus  thought.  Of  course  there  is  no  moun- 
tain from  which  one  could  see  all  the  kingdoms  of 
the  world  and  the  glory  of  them;  but  an  eager  mind 
has  no  need  of  such  a  point  of  vision.  Has  the  king- 
dom of  God  any  chance  among  these  powers  ?  The 
power  of  evil  is  ready  with  its  suggestion.  It  claims 
to  be  the  dominant  force  in  world  affairs,  and  is  able 
to  quote  history  in  confirmation.  It  affirms  that  the 
great  world  powers  have  not  come  to  their  greatness 
without  much  of  its  friendly  aid.  So  to  Jesus,  to 
whose  mind  came  visions  of  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world  as  fields  of  conquest  for  God's  kingdom,  the 
power  of  evil  whispered,  "Make  terms  with  me,  and 
you  shall  have  it  all."  As  the  world  goes,  it  was  a 
plausible  suggestion.  What  is  the  hope  of  an  abso- 
lutely pure  work  ?  How  can  one  expect  world-wide 
influence,  except  through  such  means  as  experience 
has  proved  to  be  effective  ? — and  certainly  the  shin- 
ing successes  among  the  nations  have  owed  much  to 


58  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

evil.  Is  not  a  great  enterprise  defeated  in  advance 
if  it  refuses  all  terms  v^ith  the  evil  that  so  largely  rules 
the  v^orld  ?  "All  these  things  v^ill  I  give  thee,  if 
thou  v^ilt  fall  dov^n  and  worship  me." 

But  the  proposal  w^as  made  to  one  v^ho  had  clear 
discernment  of  the  everlasting  moral  contrast,  and 
could  not  be  false  to  its  demand.  There  are  only 
two  primary  principles,  and  one  of  them  is  identified 
with  God.  To  Jesus  it  was  not  a  question.  It  was 
now  that  he  said,  "Get  thee  hence,  Satan,"  and  his 
answer  was,  "Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God, 
and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve."  To  God  and  right- 
eousness must  sole  loyalty  be  given.  Compromise 
with  the  evil  power  that  promised  so  liberally  was  not 
for  a  moment  to  be  thought  of.  Not  for  the  prospect 
of  vast  extension  of  his  influence  would  he  change 
his  attitude  toward  God.  Not  for  the  whole  world 
would  he  lower  the  high  aim  and  abandon  the  ideal. 

Thus  at  the  beginning  of  his  Hfe  among  men  Jesus 
stood  fast  by  his  high  aim — he  would  sacrifice  any- 
thing else,  but  never  that.  Again  toward  the  end 
the  temptation  is  renewed,  and  he  stands  in  the  same 
virtue.  Not  that  this  is  anything  wonderful  for  him. 
A  strong  soul  holds  to  its  standards.  When  we 
know  him  we  do  not  wonder  that  he  was  not  false, 
but  we  admire  his  steadfastness  none  the  less,  and 
are  thankful  for  such  a  picture  of  the  ideal.  The 
later  scene,  hke  the  earlier,  shows  him  as  he  was. 
The  voice  of  an  enemy  sounded  from  the  lips  of  a 
friend:  his  disciple  was  his  stumbling-block,  obstruct- 


THE  PICTURE   OF  THE  HIGH  AIM  59 

ing  the  way  in  which  it  was  his  Father's  will  that  he 
should  walk.  It  was  like  him  to  blaze  forth  upon 
his  chief  disciple  when  he  played  the  tempter's  part, 
and  he  fulfilled  the  ideal  equally  in  the  act  that  fol- 
lowed, if  he  then  graciously  told  Peter  and  the  rest 
as  much  as  they  could  understand  of  his  earher  deal- 
ing with  that  same  proposal. 

The  lesson  could  not  be  plainer.  It  could  not  be 
half  so  plain  if  it  were  taught  in  school  or  dictated  in 
words.  An  act  of  firmness  excels  all  exhortations. 
In  Jesus  here  we  behold  what  God  desires  every  man 
to  be.  He  had  the  high  aim  so  thoroughly  for  his 
own  that  it  was  impossible  for  him  to  be  false  to  it. 
This  is  our  Father's  standard  for  us  all. 

It  is  worth  while  to  notice  at  how  many  points  this 
example  touches  our  life,  and  illustrates  the  ideal 
that  it  commends  to  us.  It  is  evident  that  the  whole 
transaction  of  the  wilderness  moves  in  the  sphere  of 
religion.  The  first  necessity  is  that  the  soul  of  Jesus 
hold  fast  the  fellowship  of  the  Father.  He  must 
not  go  spiritually  away  from  home:  he  must  do  the 
will  of  God  with  a  free  and  joyful  choice,  and  thus 
abide  in  the  secret  of  his  presence.  His  action  under 
temptation  illustrates  the  effect  of  the  religious  im- 
pulse, holding  fast  to  God.  And  it  is  needless  to  say 
that  the  scene  illustrates  just  as  clearly  the  ideal  work 
in  the  field  of  ethics.  The  choice  lay  between  right 
and  wrong,  and  the  unqualified  choosing  of  the  right 
is  what  makes  the  scene  glorious.  Plainly,  too,  it 
illustrates  the  personal  life,  the  call  of  individual 
duty,  the  ideal  personal  attitude.     "As  for  me,"  says 


60  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

Jesus,  "as  for  me,  this  is  the  only  way,  and  here  I 
stand."  But  no  less  clearly  does  the  scene  illustrate 
life  in  its  social  aspect  and  the  ideal  attitude  of  the 
individual  in  social  relations.  The  great  question 
at  issue  was  how  Jesus  should  serve  his  fellows,  and 
his  decision  was  that  he  would  serve  his  fellows  by 
holding  high  his  standard  of  life,  by  forgetting  him- 
self, and  by  being  utterly  loyal  to  his  God  and  theirs. 
"As  for  you,  O  my  brothers,"  says  Jesus,  in  effect, 
"I  will  serve  you  in  the  way  that  blesses  you  most 
richly,"  and  self  did  not  come  into  the  reckoning. 
So  here  we  find  expressed  the  ideal  in  religion  and 
in  ethics,  in  personal  and  in  social  forms.  The  les- 
son touches  all  life. 

We  may  put  the  general  lesson  in  a  negative  form 
that  is  quite  intelligible,  if  we  say  that  Jesus  does  not 
stand  for  compromise.  Doubtless  there  are  matters 
in  which  compromise  is  right,  and  it  very  often  seems 
to  be  entirely  unavoidable  in  such  a  world  as  this. 
Jesus  is  the  very  soul  of  kindliness  and  patience  tow- 
ard those  who  are  but  partly  trained  in  virtue  and 
have  not  yet  attained  to  sound  consistency:  he  would 
never  make  the  present  day's  requirement  so  severe 
as  to  render  a  reasonable  obedience  impossible,  and 
he  would  never  condemn  a  compromise  that  did 
not  trifle  with  the  most  important  things.  But  for 
himself,  in  deahng  directly  with  the  great  issues  of 
life,  as  in  the  scene  before  us,  he  knows  only  one  way. 
There  is  only  one  Master,  and  he  knows  no  compro- 
mise when  his  requirement  is  involved:   there  is  only 


THE  PICTURE  OF  THE  HIGH  AIM  61 

one  principle  of  life,  and  he  accepts  no  compromise 
in  applying  it  to  himself.  This  standard  of  unswerv- 
ing loyalty  to  God  and  duty,  which  he  illustrates  in 
himself,  he  holds  out  as  the  true  standard  for  all. 
This  quality  must  be  characteristic  of  any  religion 
that  is  entitled  to  bear  his  name.  It  cannot  be  ex- 
hibited in  perfection,  but  any  religion  that  is  of  Jesus 
must  be  at  heart  a  firm  religion,  with  its  presumption 
always  against  temporizing  with  evil.  It  may  be 
said  that  such  straightforwardness  is  only  the  com- 
mon duty  of  man,  and  this  is  true;  but  then,  the 
Christian  ideal  is  only  the  genuine  human  ideal, 
taken  as  the  aim  in  a  religion  of  saving  power. 

When  we  look  at  the  influence  of  Jesus,  and  the 
view  that  is  generally  taken  of  him,  it  is  interesting 
to  note  the  effect  of  this  quality.  The  world  is  not 
averse  to  compromise,  but  rather  looks  graciously 
upon  it,  as  a  thing  wholly  inevitable,  and  not  too 
much  to  be  blamed  even  when  it  cannot  be  altogether 
approved.  Many  think  even  better  of  it,  and  count 
it  a  valuable  principle  in  Hfe.  Conscience  may 
often  bear  testimony  against  it,  but  there  are  power- 
ful voices  that  warn  conscience  not  to  be  too  urgent 
against  so  indispensable  a  thing.  Sometimes,  we 
must  own,  much  that  may  be  counted  under  the  name 
of  compromise  serves  a  Christian  purpose,  by  way 
of  forbearance  and  helpfulness  toward  a  weaker 
brother.  Nevertheless,  after  all  has  been  said,  the 
fact  remains  that  the  world  thinks  better  of  Jesus 
for  not  having  compromised.  Probably  no  reader 
of  the  Gospels  has  ever  wished  that  he  had  in  some 


62  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

way  made  terms  with  the  power  of  evil  when  it  would 
have  helped  him  toward  popularity  or  saved  him  from 
suffering.  Even  the  easy-going  and  much-compro- 
mising world  Hkes  him  better  for  it  that  he  would 
not  compromise.  Any  reader  must  shudder  to  think 
how  the  later  history  of  the  world  would  have  been 
altered  if  Jesus  had  consented  to  lower  his  high  aim 
and  abandon  his  ideal,  at  the  solicitation  of  friend 
or  foe.  Regarded  as  a  person  in  history  and  an 
example  of  sound  living,  this  is  one  great  means  of 
his  lasting  power  upon  humanity,  that  with  uncom- 
promising singleness  of  aim  he  held  his  course. 
And  this  element  of  unyielding  simplicity  and  straight- 
forwardness gives  tone  to  all  his  teaching  and  influ- 
ence in  ethics  and  religion. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD 

In  seeking  to  understand  the  ideal  of  Jesus  we 
must  make  sure  that  we  understand  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  or,  as  the  First  Gospel  calls  it,  the  Kingdom 
of  Heaven.  It  was  often  upon  his  lips.  He  found 
the  hope  of  the  kingdom  as  the  supreme  social  and 
religious  expectation  of  Israel,  and  adopted  this 
national  hope  as  the  mould  in  which  his  own  proc- 
lamation of  the  coming  good  should  be  cast. 
He  took  the  conception  for  his  own,  and  used  this 
ideal  of  his  nation  for  the  representation  of  his  own 
ideal.  So  prominent  is  the  kingdom  of  God  in  his 
discourse,  that  interpreters  have  come  to  feel  that 
it  is  the  very  first  thing  to  be  interpreted,  if  we  are 
to  understand  what  Jesus  stands  for  in  the  world. 
In  this  they  are  right.  The  kingdom  of  God  is  the 
embodiment  of  the  ideal  of  Jesus. 

How  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  of  God  came  to  be 

so  prominent,  and  yet  why  in  some  respects  it  is  so 

far  from  clear  in  meaning,  it  is  easy  to  understand. 

Out  of  the  past  the  idea  had  come  down  to  the  time 

of  Jesus.     In  the  memory  and  imagination  of  the 

people,  the  ideal  Israel  of  the  past  was  the  kingdom 

of  David  and  his  descendants;   and  in  forms  derived 

from  that  kingdom  the  prophetic  anticipation  had 

63 


64  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

long  pictured  the  ideal  Israel  of  the  future.  It  is 
no  wonder  that  the  Israel  of  the  future  was  conceived 
as  a  kingdom,  in  which  the  ancient  glory  was  to  be 
renewed,  and  the  national  hopes  of  virtue,  prosperity, 
and  power  were  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  light  of  the  divine 
presence.  This  was  only  a  natural  transmutation 
of  sacred  memory  into  sacred  hope:  it  was  a  de- 
scription of  the  promised  blessing  in  terms  of  the 
brightest  experience.  Of  old  it  had  been  hoped 
that  the  kingdom  of  David  itself  might  develop  into 
a  kingdom  in  which  the  coming  good  should  be 
embodied;  but  after  unsatisfactory  centuries  that 
kingdom  had  vanished  away.  After  it  had  gone 
the  hope  sprang  up  that  it  would  be  restored,  and 
that  new  kings  of  David^s  line,  reigning  over  Israel, 
would  bring  in  the  expected  day  of  glory;  but  this 
hope  also  came  to  no  fruition.  In  Jesus'  time  it 
still  lived  in  a  fragmentary  way,  though  almost  as  a 
hope  of  desperation,  for  the  shadow  of  the  Roman 
empire  was  upon  it,  and  only  through  rebellion  could 
it  be  fulfilled;  and  rebellion  was  hopeless.  Yet  the 
hope  of  the  kingdom  could  not  perish,  and  in  despair 
it  took  another  form.  When  earthly  institutions 
did  not  fulfil  their  promise  and  their  possibiHties 
were  all  destroyed,  it  began  to  be  expected  that  the 
coming  kingdom  would  be  brought  in  not  from  earth 
but  from  heaven.  The  natural  kingdom  failing,  a 
supernatural  one  would  appear.  God  would  intro- 
duce it  by  matchless  signs  from  heaven,  raising  the 
dead,  judging  the  nations,  vindicating  his  people, 
and  establishing  Israel  in   righteousness   and   glory 


THE  KINGDOM   OF   GOD  65 

under  his  own  dominion.  Both  in  the  earlier  form 
and  in  this  later  eschatological  one  the  hope  of  the 
kingdom  was  current  in  the  days  of  Jesus.  The 
former  was  grounded  in  history,  prophecy,  and  tradi- 
tional expectation,  while  about  the  latter  there  had 
grown  up  a  mass  of  apocalyptic  literature,  mightily 
inspiring  to  the  popular  heart. 

Thus  in  the  first  century  the  ancient  phrase  had 
virtually  two  meanings,  the  later  and  more  passionate 
expectation  being  probably  the  more  influential. 
One  hope  inspired  both,  and  in  both  forms  it  was  a 
hope  in  God,  the  God  of  the  fathers,  who  was  to  in- 
terpose and  save  his  people  Israel.  In  both  forms  it 
was  a  national  hope,  which  is  much  the  same  that 
we  mean  by  a  social  hope.  It  was  a  hope  for  the  com- 
mon hfe  of  men,  a  hope  for  the  many,  and  for  the 
life  that  they  lived  together.  These  important  ele- 
ments the  two  forms  of  the  hope  had  in  common; 
and  yet  in  spirit,  tone,  and  practical  effect  the  dif- 
ference between  them  was  very  great.  The  result  is 
that  the  phrase  kingdom  of  God,  standing  by  itself 
in  the  speech  of  that  period,  does  not  altogether  ex- 
plain itself.  For  example,  when  John  the  Baptist 
declared,  "The  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand,"  we  can- 
not tell  from  the  language  whether  he  thought  that 
a  descendant  of  David  would  soon  reestablish  the 
throne  of  his  fathers  in  Israel,  or  that  by  a  mirac- 
ulous manifestation  from  heaven  the  new  age  would 
be  inaugurated  and  the  reign  of  God  brought  in. 
Nor  does  the  phrase  upon  the  lips  of  Jesus  contain 
the  key  to  its  own  meaning,  as  between  these  two. 


66  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

The  Jewish  people  have  been  greatly  blamed  by 
Christians  for  setting  their  hearts  on  an  earthly  king- 
dom, a  national  institution,  a  carnal  kingdom  as  we 
have  been  wont  to  call  it.  They  ought,  we  are  sure, 
to  have  been  more  spiritual.  Yet  we  may  easily 
blame  them  too  much.  This  hope  was  a  hope  in 
God,  and  it  bore  the  form  which  the  providence  of 
God  had  made  most  natural.  The  glory  and  charm 
of  their  national  history  lay  in  an  earthly  kingdom. 
No  doubt  they  idealized  it,  but  the  glory  was  real  to 
them,  and  stood  as  a  sign  of  God's  own  blessing. 
Prophets  had  long  ago  pointed  them  to  the  throne 
and  family  of  David  as  the  pledge  and  hope  of  the 
great  future  that  God  had  in  store  for  Israel.  It  is 
no  wonder  that  they  expected  God's  crowning  gift 
to  come  through  the  restoration  of  the  kingdom  in 
which  their  ancient  greatness  stood.  The  persist- 
ency of  this  hope,  notwithstanding  all  its  faults,  was 
due  to  a  living  faith  in  God.  And  even  more  per- 
haps was  it  a  result  of  faith  that  the  hope  of  the  king- 
dom took  on  its  later  eschatological  form.  This 
more  brilliant  hope  sprang  up  in  the  darkness — nay, 
it  sprang  up  just  because  it  was  so  hopelessly  dark. 
Not  only  had  David's  line  ceased  from  reigning  and 
become  mingled  with  the  common  multitude,  but 
it  had  come  to  pass  that  a  throne  for  David's  Son  to 
sit  upon  was  an  utter  impossibility.  Over  a  depend- 
ency of  the  Roman  empire  like  Israel,  no  king  could 
hold  such  a  sovereignty  as  the  hope  affirmed.  But 
in  this  deep  darkness  faith  rose  undiscouraged,  to 
declare  that  God  would  not  forget  his  promise  or 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  67 

forsake  his  people.  If  the  earthly  kingdom  could  not 
come,  a  heavenly  kingdom  could,  and  would.  If 
natural  means  did  not  bring  the  Son  of  David  to  the 
king's  seat  in  triumph,  supernatural  means  vs^ould 
serve  God's  purpose,  and  glories  such  as  the  natural 
Jerusalem  could  not  know  would  shine  forth  when 
the  kingdom  of  God  was  manifested  from  heaven 
with  power. 

I  have  said  that  students  of  the  Gospels  feel  it  im- 
portant to  know  just  what  Jesus  meant  by  the  king- 
dom of  God;  and  in  consequence  they  inquire  very 
carefully  as  to  the  precise  sense  in  which  he  used 
this  phrase  of  history  and  hope.  This  is  more  de- 
cidedly the  case  in  recent  times,  since  there  came  to 
be  a  better  knowledge  of  the  two  forms  of  the  hope 
current  side  by  side  in  his  day,  and  often  flowing 
in  a  mingled  stream.  Much  labor  has  gone  into 
the  inquiry  whether  he  held  the  hope  of  the  king- 
dom in  the  historical  form,  or  in  the  apocalyptic; 
whether  he  looked  for  the  ancient  throne  to  be 
restored,  or  for  glory  to  be  flashed  from  heaven;  or 
whether,  yet  again,  he  held  the  hope  in  a  spiritualized 
form  and  counted  upon  the  kingdom  as  a  spiritual 
fact  to  be  realized  in  neither  of  these  two  ways. 
Some  have  felt  that  the  very  stability  of  the  Christian 
faith  depends  upon  his  having  been  right  on  this 
question  and  entertaining  no  incorrect  ideas.  Now 
it  is  true  that  a  right  understanding  of  Jesus'  con- 
ception of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  vital  to  the  under- 
standing of  Jesus  himself,  his  teaching  and  his  ideal. 
But  it  is  not  true  that  the  vital  point  for  us  to  decide 


68  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

IS  whether  he  held  the  apocalyptic  or  the  historical 
hope.  On  the  surface,  that  question  looks  important; 
but  the  fact  is  that  in  our  endeavor  to  understand  him 
for  ourselves,  and  in  our  efforts  to  promote  the  king- 
dom in  real  life,  it  has  now  scarcely  more  than  an 
academic  interest.  Only  by  passing  beyond  it  do 
we  come  to  the  important  point  at  all  and  approach 
our  lesson. 

With  reference  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  much  has 
happened  since  the  first  century,  and  the  question 
how  it  should  be  defined  stands  very  far  from  where  it 
stood  then.  We  have  much  new  light.  The  fact 
is  that  both  forms  of  the  Jewish  expectation  are  mat- 
ters of  the  dead  past  now.  The  kingdom  came,  and 
fulfilled  neither  of  them,  and  so  left  them  in  the 
background,  and  showed  what  it  really  was. 

The  kingdom  came.  When  Jesus  and  his  fore- 
runner said,  **The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand," 
they  spoke  the  truth.  It  was  at  hand,  and  it  came 
in.  That  sovereign  good  which  had  been  meant 
by  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  divine  forecasting  of 
the  future  did  come  with  Jesus,  and  enter  with  him 
into  the  history  of  mankind.  This  is  a  fact  of  the 
first  importance  for  our  understanding  of  the  Master, 
for  if  he  was  right,  if  the  kingdom  was  really  at  hand 
and  really  came  with  him,  then  we  have  the  means  of 
knowing  what  it  was.  The  facts  will  answer  our 
search  for  the  kingdom  of  God.  And  so  we  ask, 
What  was  it  that  came  ^ 

In  answering  this  question  we  can  say  two  things 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  69 

with  perfect  certainty.  One  is  that  if  the  kingdom 
was  at  hand,  and  came,  it  was  not  to  be  a  national 
kingdom  of  the  Davidic  line,  as  the  Jews  had  hoped 
from  of  old.  The  kingdom  is  at  hand,  said  Jesus, 
but  there  was  no  setting  up  of  David's  throne,  nor 
any  sign  that  such  a  thing  was  in  contemplation. 
The  hope  of  kingly  restoration  was  left  in  the  grave 
in  which  history  had  already  buried  it.  And  the 
other  thing  that  we  can  say  is  that  if  the  kingdom 
was  at  hand,  and  came,  it  was  not  to  be  an  eschato- 
logical  kingdom,  revealed  from  heaven  in  apocalyptic 
glories  and  terrors,  as  the  Jews  were  expecting  in 
their  later  hope.  The  kingdom  is  at  hand,  said 
Jesus,  but  there  occurred  no  descent  upon  the  clouds 
of  heaven,  no  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment, 
no  miraculous  transformation  on  earth,  no  endow- 
ment of  Jerusalem  with  supernatural  splendors.  If 
the  kingdom  was  at  hand,  as  Jesus  said  it  was,  it 
was  something  different  from  either  of  these.  And 
if  we  endeavor  to  say  that  in  either  form  the  ex- 
pected event  was  merely  postponed,  and  is  yet  to 
occur,  we  find  that  the  explanation  fails  to  meet 
the  conditions  in  the  case.  Immediacy  was  an 
essential  element  in  the  hope  that  the  New  Testament 
records.  All  the  hopes  declared  that  the  kingdom 
was  coming  soon,  and  it  was  this  expectation  of  an 
immediate  coming  that  Jesus  declared  to  be  correct. 
If  a  Davidic  king  or  an  apocalyptic  kingdom  should 
appear  after  two  thousand  years,  it  would  not  corre- 
spond to  the  actual  hope  of  Israel,  any  more  than  it 
would  to  Jesus'  confirmation  of  that  hope.     We  may 


70  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

stand  firmly  on  the  conviction  that  whatever  the 
kingdom  was  to  be,  it  came.  And  in  the  light  of  this 
fact  we  see  that  both  the  Davidic  hope  and  the 
eschatological  hope  have  been  left  behind  in  the 
course  of  events.  They  have  been  cancelled.  They 
were  earnest  hopes,  but  not  accurate  ones.  They 
represented  the  best  forelook  of  godly  men  in  their 
time,  but  the  kingdom,  when  it  came,  was  something 
different  from  either  of  them.  Thus  both  the  Davidic 
conception  and  the  eschatological  conception  of  the 
kingdom  of  God  drop  out  from  the  true  reckoning,  to 
return  no  more. 

What,  then,  was  it  that  came  ^  In  the  fact  that 
the  expected  kingdom  came  with  Jesus,  we  find  three 
helpful  descriptions  of  it.  For  one  thing,  we  see  that 
the  kingdom  that  came  was  a  kingdom  operative 
in  the  conditions  of  this  world.  It  was  not  an  order 
created  by  resuscitation  of  the  past,  or  by  incursion 
of  the  invisible  future,  but  an  order  or  method  of  life 
here  and  now,  just  where  we  are.  We  expect  it  to 
have  a  future  beyond  this  life,  since  the  human  soul 
has  such  a  future,  and  a  genuine  kingdom  of  God 
will  naturally  be  as  lasting  as  the  relation  between 
God  and  men.  But  the  true  description  of  the  king- 
dom has  its  meaning  and  application  here  and  now. 
In  present  life  we  are  to  understand  it.  If  this  de- 
scription of  the  kingdom  is  correct,  a  second  is  im- 
plied, namely,  that  what  we  need  to  learn  about  the 
kingdom  is  not  its  external  form,  but  its  internal 
character.  From  the  field  of  external  description  we 
are  driven  by  the  conditions  in  which  we  are  studying 


THE   KINGDOM  OF   GOD  71 

into  the  realm  of  ethical  and  religious  truth.  The 
kingdom  that  came  in  with  Jesus  was  not  of  this 
world:  it  was  an  unworldly  spiritual  force.  If  we 
wish  to  compass  its  meaning  we  shall  inquire  what 
the  kingdom  of  God  is  designed  to  be  as  a  dominant 
force  in  the  actual  life  of  men;  what  are  its  motives, 
its  inspirations  and  aspirations,  what  its  impelling 
powers;  what  are  the  relations  on  which  it  takes 
hold;  how  it  leads  men  to  regard  themselves  and  one 
another  and  their  God;  what  are  its  principles  of 
daily  living;  in  what  manner  it  will  inspire  men 
to  live  together  in  the  common  life;  what  revolu- 
tions and  reconstructions  it  will  bring  to  pass  in  the 
world  if  it  prevails.  These  and  such  as  these  are  the 
fundamental  questions.  And  one  thing  more.  The 
kingdom  that  was  brought  in  with  Jesus  takes  its 
character  from  him.  If  we  are  questioned  about 
its  inmost  character,  we  can  say  at  once  that  it  is  the 
order  of  life  in  this  present  world  that  corresponds 
to  his  teaching  and  influence.  It  is  the  realization 
of  his  ideal.  Jesus  appeared,  and  uttered  his  word 
and  fulfilled  his  career  in  Hfe  and  death;  and  out 
from  him  and  his  work  there  came  forth  that  order 
of  life,  personal  and  social,  in  which  the  ancient  ex- 
pectation of  the  kingdom  of  God  was  to  be  realized. 
This  order  of  life  was  that  which  was  meant  in  the 
divine  counsel  by  the  kingdom  of  God.  That  king- 
dom had  been  expected  in  forms  inspiring  in  their 
time,  but  destined  to  drop  away  in  the  fulfilment; 
but  the  reign  of  God  was  destined  to  come  in  a 
fulness  and  freedom  which  the  ancient  hopes  could 


72  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

never  foresee.  That  which  came  in  Jesus  was  truly 
God's  kingdom,  for  Jesus  revealed  God  freshly  in 
his  relation  to  the  life  of  men,  and  brought  men 
into  responsive  loyalty  to  him.  Consequently  the 
order  of  life  that  he  brought  in  was  truly  a  reign 
of  God.  It  was  that  dominion  over  men  to  which 
God  is  evermore  entitled  and  in  which  men  are 
blest. 

Here  we  have  a  threefold  description  of  the  king- 
dom of  God.  It  is  an  order  of  life  in  the  present 
time,  its  importance  resides  not  in  its  outward  form 
or  mode  of  manifestation,  but  in  its  ethics  and  relig- 
ion, and  its  ethics  and  religion  are  such  as  correspond 
to  the  teaching  and  influence  of  Jesus.  Or,  to  put  the 
three  into  one,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  the  embodi- 
ment of  the  ideal  that  Jesus  held. 

How  natural  and  normal  does  this  make  the  story 
of  the  kingdom!  When  God  placed  his  Son  in  the 
world,  the  ancient  hope  of  the  kingdom  was  to  be  ful- 
filled. The  Son  of  God  performed  the  work  of  his 
mission  in  the  world,  and  left  an  ideal  to  be  realized 
and  a  transforming  ethical  and  religious  power  to 
realize  it.  We  look  at  the  result  which  followed  from 
his  work,  and  are  well  satisfied  to  give  it  the  name 
that  the  ancient  promise  had  provided,  the  king- 
dom of  God.  It  is  a  good  name,  for  the  reign  of 
God  over  the  souls  and  social  life  of  men  is  pre- 
cisely what  Jesus  suggested  and  inspired.  More- 
over, the  reigning  over  men  to  which  God  is  entitled 
is  exactly  the  result  that  came  into  being  as  the  true 
fruit  of  his  mission.     The  work  of  Jesus  among  men 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  73 

had  no  tendency  to  produce  a  restoration  of  the 
kingdom  of  David,  neither  did  it  tend  to  change 
the  divine  method  in  the  world  to  the  apocalyptical. 
If  either  event  had  occurred;  it  would  not  have 
been  traceable  to  influence  that  he  had  put  forth. 
But  not  so  of  the  moral  and  religious  reign  of  God. 
His  mission  was  visibly  adapted  to  bring  to  pass  just 
that  divine  order  of  life  of  which  we  speak.  It  did 
bring  it  to  pass,  imperfectly  indeed,  yet  really. 
Straight  out  from  Jesus  as  a  normal  and  congenial 
outcome  from  his  work  came  that  ethical  and  relig- 
ious order  of  life  which  we  call  the  kingdom  of 
God.  In  this  God  has  followed  the  order  of  spiritual 
nature,  bringing  forth  from  the  presence  of  his  holy 
Son  among  men  an  order  of  life  that  corresponds 
to  his  significance  —  and  this  is  his  kingdom. 
Thanks  be  to  God  for  the  divine  directness  and 
simplicity  of  the  method.  And  let  not  the  imper- 
fectness  of  the  human  development  and  the  defec- 
tiveness of  the  result  blind  our  eyes  to  the  nature  of 
the  work  that  Jesus  has  initiated.  The  imperfect- 
ness  was  inevitable,  but  the  divine  fact  is  not  thereby 
destroyed. 

This  view  of  the  matter  sends  us  directly  to  Jesus 
for  our  understanding  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Since 
the  kingdom  is  that  which  corresponds  to  his  in- 
spiration and  fulfils  his  ideal,  to  him  we  must  turn 
for  knowledge  of  it.  And  it  is  well  to  remember 
again  that  when  we  come  to  him  our  attention  is 
directed  entirely  away  from  the  old  discussions  about 
the  form  of  the  kingdom  and  the  time  and  manner 


74  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

of  its  appearing.  Nor  need  we  be  surprised  at  any 
manner  belonging  to  his  own  time  in  which  we  find 
Jesus  speaking  of  it.  He  must  needs  have  spoken 
so  as  to  be  understood.  He  may  have  spoken  of  the 
coming  good  in  terms  of  any  of  the  expectations  that 
were  current  in  his  period.  The  popular  forms  were 
all  transient,  as  we  have  seen,  and  it  matters  very 
little  to  us  which  of  them  served  his  purpose  best  in 
speaking  to  his  contemporaries.  While  he  spoke  he 
was  laying  the  foundations  of  the  kingdom  that 
actually  came.  This  he  did  by  his  moral  and  spirit- 
ual work  for  men.  What  we  are  to  listen  for,  there- 
fore, if  we  wish  to  understand  the  kingdom,  is  his 
word  about  its  inner  character,  its  ethical  standard, 
its  religious  power,  its  human  applications,  its  revo- 
lutionary intent.  On  such  points  we  must  learn  of 
him. 

It  is  indispensable  that  we  approach  the  study 
of  the  kingdom,  remembering  one  thing  that  Chris- 
tendom has  been  prone  to  forget.  The  conception 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  a  social  conception.  So 
It  was  before  Christ,  when  prophets  looked  forward 
and  saw  the  people  of  a  nation  living  together  under 
new  and  diviner  auspices.  The  kingdom  was  to 
be  the  divinely  ordered  social  group  and  life.  By 
Christendom  this  has  not  been  so  much  denied  as 
ignored  or  ill-conceived.  Too  persistent  has  been 
the  impression  that  the  kingdom  of  God  is  some- 
how another  name  for  personal  religion  or  for  the 
church.  At  present,  by  way  of  preparation,  I  sim- 
ply call  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  the  kingdom 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  75 

we  must  expect  to  find  the  fulfilment  of  the  age- 
long social  hope. 

We  come  now  to  Jesus'  account  of  the  kingdom. 
The  ancient  name  is  admirably  adapted  to  represent 
his  ideal,  for  it  implies  the  great  meanings  that  re- 
side in  his  view  of  hfe.  The  right  to  rule  is  God^s. 
All  the  significance  that  Jesus  portrays  in  life  takes 
color  from  the  relation  that  men  hold  to  God.  For 
him  nothing  is  outside  this  field.  His  whole  teach- 
ing and  inspiration  have  the  presence  of  God  for 
their  necessary  atmosphere.  If  it  were  not  for  relig- 
ion his  ideal  would  have  no  existence.  Conse- 
quently Jesus'  thought  of  God  colors  everything  that 
he  says  about  the  kingdom.  In  the  kingdom  no 
man  lives  to  himself,  nor  is  anything  human  the  de- 
cisive factor.  It  is  God  that  reigns,  and  the  Hfe  of 
man  is  a  Hfe  from  God,  in  God,  and  for  God,  whose 
beneficent  will  is  to  be  done.  So  Jesus  is  winning 
men  to  God,  and  the  ideal  of  the  kingdom  is  that 
God  is  all  in  all — all  that  God  should  be,  in  all  per- 
sons and  all  affairs. 

When  we  look  to  Jesus  for  special  portrayal  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  we  might  naturally  expect  to  attend 
only  to  the  sayings  in  which  he  speaks  of  it  by  name. 
Our  only  question  might  seem  to  be.  What  does  he 
say  when  he  is  talking  about  the  kingdom  ?  But  if 
the  kingdom  represents  his  broad  ideal,  we  are  not 
limited  thus.  We  may  learn  about  the  kingdom  not 
merely  from  what  he  said  of  it  by  name,  but  from  all 
that  he  told  us  of  the  order  of  life  that  he  was  estab- 


76  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

lishing.  All  that  he  said  about  the  way  in  which 
men  ought  to  live — that  is,  all  his  teaching  in  ethics 
and  religion,  all  his  inspiration  and  his  ideal  of  life 
— goes  to  show  what  he  meant  by  this  great  term. 
As  his  whole  work  laid  the  foundations  of  the  king- 
dom, so  his  whole  utterance  of  truth  shows  us  what 
it  is. 

Nevertheless,  we  turn  first  to  what  he  said  of  the 
kingdom  under  that  name;  and  although  we  are 
not  limited  to  this  field,  we  find  ourselves  well  taught, 
even  if  we  were  to  go  no  further.  But  we  feel  our 
way  through  many  sayings  that  are  not  profoundly 
decisive  to  some  that  are.  We  discover  that  in  these 
special  utterances  he  said  a  good  many  things  de- 
scriptive of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  its  operation,  but 
not  so  many  as  we  might  expect  that  give  account 
of  the  inmost  character  of  the  kingdom  itself.  But 
some  of  these  few  things  are  entirely  decisive,  for  they 
show  what  the  living  and  powerful  spirit  of  the  king- 
dom really  is,  and  so  afford  the  key  for  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  whole. 

Look  first  at  the  sayings  that  are  more  external. 
For  example,  he  describes  the  kingdom  as  precious. 
Its  secret  is  like  treasure  hid  in  a  field,  to  be  obtained 
only  by  him  who  is  eager  and  wise  enough.  It  is  like 
a  pearl  of  great  price,  worthy  to  be  obtained  at  all 
costs.  Or,  he  describes  the  manner  of  its  enlarge- 
ment. It  becomes  great  from  small,  in  the  manner 
of  the  mustard-seed,  far  transcending  its  apparent 
promise;  it  is  pervasive,  Hke  the  leaven,  quietly 
transforming  that  in  which  it  is  placed;  it  grows,  no 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  77 

man  knows  how,  like  the  seed  in  the  ground,  respon- 
sive to  unseen  forces;  it  comes  unobserved,  and  "is 
in  the  midst  of  you,"  even  while  he  speaks.  Or, 
he  tells  of  the  imperfectness  of  its  manifestation  in 
the  present  time.  It  is  like  the  field  in  which  the 
tares  grow  among  the  wheat,  not  yet  to  be  relieved 
of  their  presence;  it  is  like  the  net  that  gathers  fish 
of  every  kind,  good  and  bad,  which  have  to  be  sepa- 
rated. Or,  he  tells  how  exacting  it  is.  Among  those 
who  are  expecting  it,  the  first  shall  be  last  and  the 
last  first;  it  reminds  him  of  wise  and  foolish  virgins, 
who  respectively  seize  and  miss  their  opportunity  at 
the  wedding  feast;  it  shall  be  taken  away  from 
**the  children  of  the  kingdom,"  if  they  do  not  discern 
its  spirit,  and  many  from  east  and  west  shall  receive 
its  blessings  in  their  stead;  publicans  and  harlots 
shall  enter  it  before  chief  priests  and  elders  who  are 
blind  to  its  character.  In  these  sayings  and  others 
that  resemble  them  he  describes  certain  relations 
and  workings  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  presents 
its  various  appeals  with  stirring  power,  but  he  does 
not  tell  us  what  it  is.  In  these  utterances  there  is  no 
indication  of  what  it  is  that  constitutes  the  kingdom 
of  God  as  its  moral  and  religious  principle.  If  we 
wish  to  live  our  life  in  the  kingdom,  he  has  not  yet 
told  us  how.  What  is  the  inner  definition  }  Obedi- 
ence to  God  .?  Yes,  but  what  obedience  ?  Obedience 
to  what  primary  moral  demand  I  Is  it  fellowship 
with  God  ?  but  fellowship  in  what  fundamental 
quality  and  character  ?  The  inner  secret  has  not 
yet  been  told  us. 


78  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

There  are  other  sayings  that  go  farther  toward 
the  innermost.  The  Master  helps  us  sometimes  by 
speaking  of  the  possibiUty  or  impossibility  of  enter- 
ing the  kingdom,  and  in  this  light  we  seem  almost  to 
see  into  the  heart  of  the  matter.  It  is  desperately 
hard  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  kingdom — nay,  it  is 
humanly  impossible,  possible  at  all  only  because  all 
things  are  possible  to  God.  Only  with  a  righteous- 
ness better  than  that  of  scribes  and  Pharisees  can 
any  one  enter.  Only  in  the  spirit  of  little  children 
can  men  come  in.  Only  by  a  new  birth,  or  a  birth 
from  above,  is  it  possible.  These  sayings  come 
much  nearer  to  the  centre  of  the  subject,  for  from  one 
side  or  another  they  all  call  attention  to  the  spirit  or 
temper  that  is  requisite  if  one  would  come  into  the 
new  life  to  which  Jesus  is  calling.  And  yet  even 
these  statements  are  not  complete,  and  the  secret  has 
not  yet  been  opened.  Wherein  the  righteousness  of 
scribes  and  Pharisees  is  insufficient,  what  it  is  in  the 
kingdom  of  God  that  a  rich  man  cannot  receive,  what 
it  is  that  requires  to  be  received  in  the  spirit  of  a  little 
child,  what  indeed  is  the  moral  attitude  in  fellowship 
with  God  that  constitutes  the  dominant  impulse  in 
the  life  of  the  kingdom,  what  is  the  test-question  and 
turning-point — these  vital  questions  are  not  answered 
in  the  sayings  that  have  been  cited.  In  their  place 
we  shall  find  these  sayings  immensely  rich  in  their 
testimony  to  the  Christian  ideal,  but  they  leave 
us  still  seeking  the  determinative  principle  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  There  must  be  some  central 
characteristic,  around  which   these  various  descrip- 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  79 

tions  gather  and  from  which  they  derive  their  ap- 
propriateness. 

There  is  one  of  the  words  just  referred  to  that  does 
not  indeed  describe  the  kingdom  itself,  but  does  illu- 
mine the  way  in  which  it  must  be  entered.  There 
are  two  scenes,  each  thrice  recorded,  in  which  Jesus 
illustrated  entrance  to  the  kingdom  by  reference  to  a 
little  child.  On  one  occasion  his  disciples  were  dis- 
puting as  to  which  of  them  was,  or  was  to  be,  the 
greatest  in  his  kingdom.  On  the  other,  little  chil- 
dren— babes — were  brought  to  him  to  receive  his 
blessing.  We  cannot  be  sure  that  we  have  his  very 
words  in  either  case,  for  the  records  differ  in  their 
way  of  combining  the  sayings  in  which  substantially 
a  single  thought  is  expressed;  but  in  them  all  we 
catch  the  tone  of  the  Master's  voice  most  distinctly, 
and  have  no  difficulty  in  perceiving  his  point.  The 
utterances,  variously  grouped  in  the  different  Gos- 
pels, are  these:  "Suffer  the  little  children  to  come 
unto  me,  for  of  such  is,"  or  to  such  belongeth,  "the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  "Except  ye  turn  and  become 
as  little  children,  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  the  king- 
dom of  heaven."  "Whosoever  shall  not  receive  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child  shall  in  no  wise 
enter  therein."  "Whosoever  shall  humble  himself 
as  a  little  child,  the  same  is  greatest  in  the  kingdom  of 
God."  "Whosoever  shall  receive  this  little  child  in 
my  name  receiveth  me;  and  whosoever  receiveth  me 
receiveth  him  that  sent  me;  for  he  that  is  least  among 
you,  the  same  is  great."     "If  any  man  would  be 


80  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

first,  he  shall  be  last  of  all,  and  servant  of  all."  All 
these  are  variant  forms  of  one  idea,  and  the  mean- 
ing of  the  symbolism  is  plain.  The  sayings  might  all 
be  a  commentary  upon  the  beatitude,  "Blessed  are 
the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 
It  is  the  childlike  who  enter.  To  be  without  self- 
importance,  to  be  humble,  simple-minded,  trustful, 
receptive,  to  be  content  with  lowliness  and  let  all  else 
be  great — this  is  the  spirit  for  which  the  kingdom  is 
prepared. 

Doubtless  there  may  be  other  true  descriptions  of 
the  spirit  that  can  enter  the  kingdom,  but  this  is  one 
that  the  Lord  has  given  us.  It  is  a  searching  word. 
It  is  a  natural  thing  for  little  children  to  be  suggestive 
of  all  this  spiritual  beauty,  and  it  requires  neither 
grace  nor  effort  on  their  part.  But  the  Master  was 
not  addressing  little  children;  he  was  speaking  to 
grown  men  and  women,  and  to  such  the  kingdom  in 
all  ages  brings  its  appeal.  It  is  one  thing  to  be  little 
children,  but  to  become  as  little  children  after  hav- 
ing grown  away  from  the  childlike  temper,  to  "turn," 
and  take  on  this  spirit  so  unlike  all  that  maturity 
acquires  and  glories  in,  this  is  quite  another  thing. 
This  is  a  change  at  which  human  ability  stumbles. 
If  it  were  not  that  the  kingdom  is  God's  own  and  he 
is  almighty  and  gracious,  no  man  could  enter  it. 
Yet  this  is  what  the  kingdom  means.  Men  do  not 
enter  it  with  heads  high,  as  if  they  were  doing  it  all 
themselves  and  were  to  receive  the  glory  of  it.  Their 
hearts  bow  in  humility  as  they  receive  the  gift  of  God 
and  begin  to  live  the  life  of  his  kingdom. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  81 

This  simplicity  and  spiritual  receptiveness  is  ap- 
preciated again  with  a  full  heart  when  Jesus  says, 
rejoicing  in  what  God  has  done  for  those  who  came 
to  him,  *'I  thank  thee,  O  Father,  Lord  of  heaven  and 
earth,  that  thou  hast  hid  these  things  from  the  wise 
and  Intelligent,  and  hast  revealed  them  unto  babes: 
yea.  Father,  for  so  it  seemed  good  In  thy  sight." 
This  was  the  way  of  the  divine  wisdom,  as  experience 
was  proving.  Eyes  that  are  less  used  to  the  dazzling 
light  of  this  world  are  shown  to  have  better  vision 
for  the  realities  that  are  revealed  by  God,  and  Jesus 
rejoices  In  the  honor  that  his  Father  has  thus  put 
upon  the  simple  heart.  Not  that  he  would  fail  In 
welcome  to  the  wise  and  Intelligent,  or  withhold  from 
them  his  appeals,  or  count  them  unworthy  of  the 
kingdom.  Them  also  he  would  call,  and  bring. 
But  It  Is  not  as  wise  and  Intelligent  that  they  will  find 
the  kingdom  open  to  them.  When  they  add  to  their 
wisdom  a  chlldhke  simplicity  of  heart,  the  kingdom 
Is  theirs. 

It  Is  not  true  that  In  thus  honoring  the  simple  and 
childlike  soul  Jesus  puts  honor  upon  meanness  of 
spirit,  or  in  any  manner  promises  the  kingdom  only 
to  those  who  from  a  manly  point  of  view  are  least 
worthy  of  It.  This  Is  sometimes  alleged  against 
Christianity;  but  In  the  name  of  God  and  man  Chris- 
tians ought  to  reject  the  accusation  and  disprove  It. 
That  which  Jesus  meant  by  the  childlike  spirit  Is 
beautiful  in  a  child.  Indeed,  but  not  so  beautiful 
as  It  Is  elsewhere.  Simplicity  and  humility  are  far 
more  beautiful  In  a  great  soul  capable  of  the  largest 


82  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

things.  Humility,  the  opposite  of  self-importance, 
openness  of  heart  to  that  which  is  greater,  receptive- 
ness,  sweet  co-ordination  with  powers  above,  adapta- 
tion to  humble  work — these  are  qualities  that  belong 
to  all  high  character,  and  are  more  beautiful  than 
anywhere  else  when  they  are  worn  as  the  garment 
of  grace  upon  splendid  powers. 

From  this  view  of  the  spirit  that  enters  the  kingdom 
we  may  proceed  to  another  utterance  of  Jesus,  in 
which  he  has  gone  beyond  all  externals  and  all  pre- 
paratory stages,  and  proclaimed  the  inner  working 
principle  that  makes  the  kingdom  what  it  is. 

The  lesson  is  one  of  those  that  gain  in  impressive- 
ness  by  coming  in  perfect  simplicity  out  of  real  life. 
The  principle  is  laid  down  by  the  Master  in  answer 
to  a  definite  request.  Two  of  his  disciples,  James 
and  his  brother  John,  with  their  mother  according 
to  one  report,  approach  Jesus  privately  and  ask  him 
to  promise  them  seats  at  his  right  hand  and  his  left, 
the  seats  of  highest  honor,  in  his  kingdom  when  he 
comes  into  it.  In  answering  so  ambitious  a  request 
he  warns  them  that  they  have  no  idea  of  what  they 
are  asking  for,  and  asks  them  in  turn  whether  they 
are  able  to  drink  the  cup  that  it  will  be  necessary  for 
him  to  drink,  and  undergo  the  deep  consecration  of 
suffering  that  he  will  have  to  endure  on  his  way  to 
the  throne  of  the  kingdom.  As  they  knew  not  what 
they  asked,  so  now  they  know  not  what  they  answer, 
but  they  say,  "We  are  able,"  full  of  the  self-confi- 
dence of  an  ignorant  mind.     Then  he  tells  them  that 


THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD  83 

they  shall  indeed  drink  of  the  cup  and  partake  in  the 
baptism  of  suffering,  but  that  that  cannot  insure  to 
them  the  seats  that  they  are  asking  for.  Who  will 
have  seats  at  his  right  and  left  in  his  kingdom  cannot 
be  told  beforehand.  They  are  not  to  be  assigned  by 
him,  and  he  can  only  say  that  those  for  whom  the 
seats  are  prepared  will  come  to  them.  Of  course  this 
means  that  those  for  whom  the  seats  are  prepared 
will  prove  to  be  the  same  as  those  who  are  prepared 
to  take  possession  of  the  seats.  Their  own  will  come 
to  them,  and  they  will  come  to  their  own;  those  who 
can  take  the  seats,  being  fit,  will  take  them  by  virtue 
of  their  fitness.  And  when  he  mentions  the  sharing 
of  the  cup  and  the  baptism  that  are  appointed  to  the 
king  himself,  it  is  implied  that  the  men  who  go  to  the 
kingdom  closest  to  the  king  will  be  the  ones  to  sit  at 
his  right  hand  and  his  left.  Whether  James  and  John 
will  sit  nearest  to  the  king  will  depend  upon  how  well 
they  follow  the  king  in  living  out  the  spirit  of  the 
kingdom.  The  two  disciples  may  have  been  sur- 
prised at  the  dropping  of  all  favoritism  that  was  in- 
volved in  this,  but  if  they  reflected  seriously  they 
could  not  be  offended  at  what  they  were  told.  The 
terms  were  certainly  reasonable  and  self-commend- 
ing. No  one  could  have  a  right  to  ask  a  more  defi- 
nite assurance  than  this,  which  was,  in  effect,  "You 
will  have  the  highest  seats  in  the  kingdom  if  you  take 
possession  of  them  by  the  highest  fulfilment  of  the 
spirit  of  the  kingdom." 

Yet  exactly  by  what  means  the  highest  seats  in  the 
kingdom  are  to  be  taken  is  not  yet  apparent,  but  to 


84  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

this  Jesus  now  turns.  The  two  disciples  have  been 
unblushingly  ambitious  in  their  request,  and  the 
other  ten,  when  they  hear  of  it,  are  scandalized  at 
such  ambition,  and  indignant — not  perhaps  because 
the  ten  are  really  less  ambitious,  so  much  as  because 
the  two  have  put  in  a  first  claim.  Thereupon  Jesus 
summons  them  all  into  his  presence,  and  tells  them 
where  they  have  been  wrong,  and  offers  them  the 
true  idea  in  place  of  the  false.  The  whole  matter 
has  been  conceived  after  the  manner  of  this  world. 
James  and  John  have  thought  of  the  seats  nearest 
to  the  king  as  honors  that  the  king  confers,  and  that 
bring  elevation  and  compliment  to  the  recipients  of 
his  gift.  But  this  whole  idea  Jesus  bids  them  banish. 
He  reminds  them  that  in  this  world  greatness  is  sup- 
posed to  be  identified  with  authority,  power,  exalta- 
tion, dominion,  visible  superiority.  Whenever  a  man 
is  great  he  seems  great  and  feels  great.  This  idea 
of  greatness  has  been  in  all  their  minds,  and  has 
misled  them.  "But,"  he  says,  "it  is  not  so  among 
you" — a  great  and  decisive  word.  In  his  kingdom 
in  which  they  are  seeking  to  be  promoted,  greatness 
is  not  of  the  same  kind  as  in  the  kingdoms  of  this 
world.  All  goes  on  another  principle.  Here,  he 
who  is  to  be  great  must  be  the  servant,  and  he  who  is 
to  be  greatest  must  be  servant  beyond  all  the  rest. 
Service,  or  rather  the  spirit  that  will  render  service, 
is  the  test.  The  higher  the  destination,  the  lowlier 
the  way  by  which  one  must  come  to  it.  This  is  the 
method  of  this  kingdom.  It  is  a  kingdom  of  mutual 
help,  and  this  is  the  law  of  it. 


THE  KINGDOM  OF   GOD  85 

That  this  must  be  the  method  of  the  kingdom  Jesus 
makes  plain  by  reminding  them  that  this  is  the 
method  of  the  king.  "For  the  Son  of  man  came  not 
to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister" — not  to  be 
served  but  to  be  a  servant — "and  to  give  his  life  a 
ransom  for  many."  As  he  said  at  another  time, 
"Which  is  greater,  he  that  sits  at  the  table,  or  he  that 
waits  on  the  table  ?  But  I  am  among  you  as  he  that 
waits  on  the  table."  The  Son  of  man,  who  was  to 
be  the  king,  held  not  himself  at  his  own  disposal, 
and  sought  no  exaltation,  but  made  himself  a  servant 
ministering  to  men,  even  to  the  giving  of  his  life  in 
their  behalf,  a  ransom  to  deliver  them  from  the  cap- 
tivity of  sin.  In  which  they  could  never  rise  to  the 
spirit  of  the  kingdom.  By  this  complete  devotion 
of  himself  to  others  whom  he  can  bless,  he  has  set 
the  type  for  his  kingdom  and  for  all  its  life.  Since 
the  king  Is  supreme  in  devotion  for  others'  good, 
this  is  the  keynote  for  all  who  belong  to  his  king- 
dom. One  who  Is  to  sit  near  the  throne  must  take 
the  same  path  with  him  who  has  gone  before  to  sit 
upon  the  throne,  and  must  closely  follow  him.  He 
who  best  does  the  work  In  which  the  king  Is  leader, 
the  work  of  a  servant  to  those  whom  he  can  bless, 
thereby  sits  down  nearest  to  his  Lord. 

This  Is  a  new  doctrine  to  the  disciples  regarding 
the  way  to  the  highest  places  In  the  kingdom,  but  it 
is  more  than  that.  It  is  a  most  surprising  doctrine 
concerning  the  nature  of  those  places,  and  concern- 
ing the  character  of  the  kingdom  Itself.  James  and 
John  must  be  taught  better  than  to  think  of  seats  at 


86  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

the  Lord's  right  and  left  as  honors  conferred.  Ac- 
cording to  the  spirit  of  this  teaching,  they  are  not  to 
be  conceived  as  honors  at  all.  The  whole  idea  of 
visible  greatness  and  exaltation  as  a  reward  must  be 
dropped  from  the  conception  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
It  does  not  belong  there.  Human  self-esteem  may 
set  its  heart  upon  a  comfortable  compensating  glory 
as  a  reward  for  service  rendered  to  the  king,  but  it 
is  wrong.  The  Master  says,  "It  shall  not  be  so 
among  you."  He  who  is  seated  at  the  Lord's  right 
hand  is  not  there  to  be  congratulated  upon  his  work 
or  admired  for  the  virtue  that  has  brought  him  thither. 
His  high  place  is  not  something  that  has  been  assigned 
to  him  in  reward  for  what  he  has  done.  More  amaz- 
ing is  the  doctrine:  he  has  taken  it  in  the  doing.  In 
the  very  act  of  serving,  the  seat  near  the  Lord  has 
been  taken — yes,  in  the  lowly  act  itself.  The  doing 
of  the  service  that  is  likest  to  the  Lord  sets  a  man 
nearest  to  the  Lord  in  his  kingdom.  Nothing  else 
can  place  him  there,  but  this  can  and  does.  And 
the  surprise  goes  farther  yet.  It  follows  that  the 
man  who  is  seated  next  to  the  Lord  is  not  likely  to 
suspect  that  he  is  there,  and  that  none  of  his  fellows 
may  know  anything  about  it.  Nevertheless,  in  being 
the  completest  servant  except  One,  he  has  taken  the 
place  in  the  kingdom  next  to  the  One,  and  the  Lord 
will  see  him  there,  though  no  one  else  may  know. 
And  if  he  was  displaced  by  a  better  servant  to- 
morrow he  would  neither  know  it  nor  be  jealous  if 
he  knew. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  also  that  the  kingdom  of 


THE   KINGDOM   OF   GOD  87 

which  Jesus  here  speaks  is  not  located  in  a  distant 
heaven  or  coming  in  some  future  age.  The  king- 
dom of  God  came  with  Jesus,  and  is  a  living  kingdom 
in  this  present  world.  The  throne  of  the  supreme 
Servant- King  has  already  been  set  up,  and  the  places 
at  his  right  and  left  are  already  in  existence.  The 
unconscious  rank  of  lowly  service  is  a  present-day 
reality.  The  seats  are  filled,  though  only  the  Lord 
knows  who  fill  them. 

This  testimony  to  the  character  of  the  kingdom 
of  God  is  so  clear  and  distinctive  as  to  yield  a  defini- 
tion. According  to  this,  the  kingdom  of  God  is  a 
reign  of  mutual  service  and  help,  with  an  unselfish 
devotion  to  others  for  its  impelling  power. 

This  doctrine  of  the  kingdom  of  God  includes  two 
parts,  upon  which  apparently  Jesus  would  have  us 
place  equal  emphasis.  They  relate  to  his  part  in  the 
kingdom,  and  to  ours.  So  far  as  the  definition  is 
derived  from  Jesus'  own  relation  to  the  kingdom,  it 
has  long  been  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood.  That 
the  Son  of  man  came  to  the  headship  in  the  kingdom 
by  the  way  of  supreme  self-sacrifice,  taking  the  form 
of  a  servant,  becoming  obedient  even  unto  death, 
giving  his  life  a  ransom  for  many,  has  long  been 
familiar  doctrine,  and  the  church  has  always  held  it 
fast  in  wondering  faith.  It  has  been  discerned  that 
the  kingdom  is  one  in  which  the  chief  servant  is 
king.  But  the  definition  as  he  gave  it  applies  just 
as  much  to  the  members  of  the  kingdom  as  to  the 
king.     In  his  teaching  their  law  of  Hfe  is  made  as 


88  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

plain  as  his.  The  whole  kingdom  is  one  of  service: 
the  spirit  of  service  and  help  is  its  vital  air  for  all  vs^ho 
belong  to  it.  This,  however,  has  not  been  so  well 
understood.  We  have  thought  of  Jesus  as  the  great 
self-sacrificer,  and  supposed  that  our  place  in  the 
kingdom  was  to  be  obtained  by  allowing  him  to 
sacrifice  himself  for  us  and  trustfully  accepting  the 
benefit  of  his  work.  He  was  the  great  servant  and 
we  v^ere  the  recipients  of  his  service,  and  thus  we 
were  to  be  saved.  A  doctrine  of  service  and  self- 
sacrifice  has  been  taught  by  Christians,  but  it  has 
been  taught  too  much  as  a  corollary  from  the  central 
truth  of  Christianity,  and  not  enough  as  the  central 
truth  itself.  It  is  the  central  truth.  We  are  indeed 
to  be  recipients  of  our  Saviour's  service,  and  heirs  of 
the  benefit  of  his  self-sacrifice;  but  his  doctrine  of 
the  kingdom  throws  new  light  upon  this  heirship, 
showing  what  fruit  of  his  work  it  is  that  we  are  to 
inherit.  We  are  to  be  recipients  of  the  benefit  of  his 
self-sacrifice  by  being  transformed  into  the  likeness 
of  it.  His  kingdom  is  a  kingdom  of  servants  like 
himself,  and  its  life  is  a  life  of  mutual  help,  or  rather 
of  help  to  all  and  any  who  can  be  helped.  This  he 
long  ago  made  so  plain  that  we  ought  never  to  have 
missed  the  point.  That  a  world  of  unselfish  mutual 
helpers  is  the  ideal  world  according  to  Christianity 
is  absolutely  clear. 

In  the  conversation  from  which  our  definition  was 
derived,  the  disciples  looked  upon  Jesus  himself  as 
the  king  of  the  kingdom  that  was  to  be.     If  we  call 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  89 

It  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  as  we  often  do,  it  is  easy  to 
see  that  it  takes  from  its  head  the  character  of  service 
and  self-devotion;  but  v^hat  if  we  return  to  the  ancient 
name  and  call  it  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  Is  there  any 
such  appropriateness  now  ?  The  kingdom  of  Christ 
is  a  kingdom  of  service,  but  is  this  the  manner  of 
God  ?  The  common  thought  is  far  enough  from  this. 
We  have  felt  compelled  to  think  of  God  as  actuated 
by  different  motives  from  ours.  He  stands  on  the 
other  side  of  the  question  of  service.  He  is  to  be 
served.  In  the  ideal  state  "all  are  his  servants," 
and  all  good  consecration  is  consecration  to  him. 
We  give  service,  and  he  receives  it.  But  while 
Jesus  affirms  God's  claim  upon  our  all,  he  also  shows 
him  in  another  light.  Jesus  himself,  who  gave  his 
life  a  ransom  for  many,  is  an  expression  of  God's 
own  heart.  Guided  by  him,  we  trace  self-sacrificing 
service  back  into  God  himself.  God  is  the  great 
servant.  Every  child  is  served  by  his  parents,  as  all 
sound  human  experience  testifies,  and  Jesus  points 
to  God  as  Father — Father  not  only  because  he  gave 
us  being,  but  because  he  bends  over  us  with  a  Father's 
affectionate  care.  Through  Jesus  we  know  that  God 
does  not  stand  aloof  from  men  in  their  helplessness, 
or  hold  his  place  above  them  in  a  spirit  of  superiority, 
or  exploit  them  for  his  own  glory.  Rather  is  the 
Father  at  the  service  of  his  children.  His  representa- 
tive is  Jesus,  who  loved  them  unto  the  death.  So 
when  Jesus  portrays  God's  kingdom  as  a  kingdom  of 
service  and  self-sacrifice,  he  only  does  justice  to  God 
of  whom  he  speaks.     The  principle  of  self-devoting 


90  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

help  has  found  a  place  in  the  common  life  of  men 
through  the  strain  of  hard  necessity,  but  it  is  a  more 
than  human  principle.  He  who  has  manifested  the 
Father  has  shown  us  that  it  was  grounded  in  the 
nature  of  eternal  being. 

A  kingdom  of  mutual  help  is  the  ideal  of  Jesus  for 
human  life,  and  it  is  represented  by  the  kingdom  of 
God,  expected  from  of  old  and  brought  in  with  Jesus. 
Of  course  there  are  other  elements  in  his  ideal  of  life, 
some  of  which  are  set  forth  in  his  varied  teaching. 
Some  of  the  chief  of  these  I  propose  to  unfold,  as 
well  as  I  can,  in  the  pages  that  follow.  But  all  the 
virtues  and  graces  that  enter  into  his  ideal  stand 
vitally  related  to  the  character  and  life  that  the  spirit 
of  help  inspires.  Whatever  other  graces  may  be 
gathered  into  it,  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  ideal 
of  Jesus,  is  a  reign  of  unselfish  service,  seeking  all 
good  for  all. 

Now  in  a  few  statements,  obvious  but  not  super- 
fluous, I  must  gather  up  what  has  been  said 
of  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  order  to  project  it  into 
the  use  that  is  to  follow.  They  are  of  the  ut- 
most importance  for  the  grasping  of  Christianity 
as  an  ideal  and  the  understanding  of  it  as  a  living 
force. 

(i)  A  kingdom  that  is  thus  described  is  a  social 
kingdom.  It  finds  its  field  and  opportunity  in  the 
field  of  human  society.  Service,  or  helpfulness,  is 
no  abstract  conception.  It  is  not  a  doctrine,  to 
which  men  can  do  justice  by  thinking  of  it:  it  is  the 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  91 

most  concrete  of  things :  it  exists  only  in  the  realm  of 
facts.  Nor  is  it  a  virtue  that  can  be  trained  in  soli- 
tude. It  is  obvious  that  service  impHes  a  plurality 
of  persons  and  requires  that  they  be  associated  to- 
gether. If  only  one  person  existed,  we  may  imagine 
some  virtues  that  he  might  possess,  though  we  do  not 
see  how  he  could  get  them,  but  he  could  not  devote 
himself  to  any  service,  and  there  could  be  no  such 
thing  as  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  when  men  live 
together  that  mutual  service  is  born.  Men  living 
together  have  their  need  of  help  and  their  powers  to 
use  in  helping;  here,  therefore,  is  the  field  for  the  play 
of  that  fine  impulse  of  helpfulness,  normal  in  man 
and  eternal  in  God,  which  the  kingdom  takes  for  its 
vital  working  force.  A  world  that  fulfilled  the  ideal 
of  God's  kingdom  would  be  a  world  in  which  men 
helped  one  another;  and  certainly  the  ideal  would 
not  draw  any  Hmits  to  the  field  of  help,  or  confine 
helpful  activities  to  any  particular  class  of  services 
from  man  to  man.  In  his  kingdom  God  has  not 
drawn  any  such  lines  of  limitation  or  restriction. 
Above  all  else  the  kingdom  of  God  is  a  social  spirit 
and  a  social  force,  manifest  in  the  life  of  man  with 
man.  Of  old  it  was  conceived  as  a  nation.  When 
it  came  it  was  not  a  nation,  but  it  was  still  a  matter 
of  organized  humanity.  It  is  a  force  that  penetrates 
like  leaven,  carrying  and  imparting  its  character  as 
it  goes;  and  the  character  that  it  carries  is  helpful 
love.  This  self-imparting  quaHty  goes  penetrating 
through  the  world,  and  through  mutual  service  it 
moves  from  man  to  man,  from  group  to  group,  from 


92  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

race  to  race.  This  is  social  work,  and  we  see  at  once 
how  impossible  it  is  for  any  doctrine  of  strict  indi- 
vidualism to  do  justice  to  this  divine  conception. 
The  kingdom  of  God  has  no  Hfe  except  in  a  mass 
of  men.  The  greater  the  thronging  multitude,  and 
the  richer  the  training  of  the  Christian  heart,  the 
more  glorious  is  the  opportunity  for  a  genuine  king- 
dom of  God,  which  is  the  Christian  ideal  for  the 
world. 

(2)  The  kingdom  of  God  is  a  kingdom  of  personal 
experience  and  character,  just  as  truly  as  it  is  a  social 
kingdom.  It  would  be  the  greatest  of  mistakes  to 
think  otherwise.  Of  course  social  work  depends 
upon  individual  work,  and  the  social  ideal  cannot  be 
realized  except  as  the  ideal  personal  life  is  lived  by 
many.  The  kingdom  of  God  has  to  be  a  kingdom 
of  individual  renewal  before  it  can  be  a  kingdom  of 
social  power.  Apart  from  all  doctrines,  it  stands  as 
an  every-day  fact  that  except  a  man  be  born  again  he 
cannot  enter  into  it.  Men  must  be  born  into  its 
spirit,  transformed  that  they  may  live  its  life.  From 
an  inferior  mind,  an  impure  spirit,  a  heart  unmoved 
by  God,  a  selfish  will,  a  proud  preference,  an  indo- 
lent temper,  a  grasping  ambition,  a  haughty  isolation, 
a  cold  indifference  to  men,  a  contempt  for  self-sacri- 
fice, or  any  other  form  of  opposition  to  the  spirit  of 
Jesus  and  of  God,  men  must  be  brought  into  sym- 
pathy with  the  heart  of  the  great  Servant.  They 
must  be  led  to  make  their  own  the  mind  of  Christ, 
which  knows  no  way  but  the  way  of  usefulness. 
There  is  very  much  unselfishness  in  the  world,  and 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  93 

yet  the  kingdom  of  which  we  are  speaking  is  a  king- 
dom of  new  life,  since  it  is  so  profoundly  unlike  the 
life  that  mankind  has  come  to  live.  Because  it  im- 
plies this  change,  and  the  growth  of  this  new  spirit, 
it  is  a  kingdom  of  personal  experience  and  character. 
And  the  need  of  experience  congenial  to  its  quality 
is  not  confined  to  the  initial  stages.  The  new  spirit 
needs  not  only  to  be  breathed  into  individual  men: 
it  needs  to  remain  in  them  and  be  exercised  by  use 
and  training  until  it  can  no  more  forsake  them: 
wherefore  it  needs  to  be  nourished  and  cherished  by 
all  kindred  influence  until  it  has  become  their  very 
selves.  The  kingdom  has  to  create  its  own  people 
to  do  its  work:  for  though  the  spirit  of  unselfish  love 
is  trained  in  common  life  by  the  providence  of  God, 
still  in  the  true  sense  it  is  only  half  created  anywhere, 
and  the  kingdom  has  to  inspire  men  for  its  purpose. 
And  so  far  as  men  have  become  taught  and  trained 
and  capable,  the  kingdom  is  served  by  their  putting 
forth  of  their  personal  energy  in  accordance  with  its 
spirit.  Thus  while  the  kingdom  of  God  is  a  kingdom 
of  social  relations  and  works,  it  is  not  one  in  which 
the  individual  is  lost  in  the  crowd  or  the  high  sig- 
nificance of  the  personal  life  is  overlooked.  Here 
every  man  is  himself,  though  no  man  liveth  unto 
himself. 

(3)  The  kingdom  of  God  is  a  kingdom  of  ethics. 
All  social  life  is  ethical,  for  all  relations  of  man  with 
man  imply  both  rights  and  duties  in  great  variety. 
In  the  complicated  life  that  men  have  come  to  live 
together  the  ethical  question,  the  question  what  men 


94  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

ought  to  do,  arises  at  every  turn  and  in  all  possible 
forms.  Right  and  wrong  are  being  done  every  mo- 
ment in  every  conceivable  manner,  and  fresh  oppor- 
tunities of  right  and  wrong  are  perpetually  arising 
in  new  intensity  and  complication.  Into  this  moral 
world,  where  good  and  evil  are  striving  together, 
comes  now  the  kingdom  of  God,  with  its  supreme 
ideal  of  goodness  and  its  urgent  call  for  all  such 
effort  as  will  make  the  world  better.  How  it  rein- 
forces the  worthy  ethical  impulses  and  condemns  the 
unworthy!  how  it  forces  inquiry  into  the  right  and 
wrong  of  what  men  are  doing!  how  it  brings  high 
standards  to  bear  on  all!  how  it  weeps  over  oppres- 
sion, injustice,  and  the  harming  of  the  human!  how 
it  pleads  for  righteousness  and  fellowship  and  help! 
how  it  glorifies  all  that  is  good!  Its  demand  for 
doing  good  as  the  law  of  life  is  a  perfectly  intelligible 
demand,  and  a  searching  one  also.  Our  best  dreams 
of  the  future  are  dreams  of  a  time  when  the  world 
is  governed  by  the  motive  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
the  motive  of  unselfish  helpfulness:  this  is  the  attrac- 
tive and  inspiring  point  in  all  the  Utopias.  The  per- 
meating of  all  the  common  life  of  men  by  this  Chris- 
tian motive  is  the  task  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  All 
ethical  movements  in  the  living  world  need  to  be 
captivated  by  this  divine  impulse,  and  all  high  ethical 
hopes  take  courage  since  a  kingdom  of  God  himself 
is  proposing  to  bring  this  to  pass. 

(4)  The  kingdom  that  is  thus  ethical  in  its  field 
and  character  is  a  rehgious  kingdom.  It  could  not 
be  the  sound  and  hopeful  ethical  order  that  it  is  if  it 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  95 

were  not  religious.  It  is  a  religious  kingdom,  for 
its  Lord  is  God — not,  as  we  shall  see,  a  distant  God, 
or  a  God  abstractly  conceived,  but  a  God  in  closest 
relation  with  men,  vitally  joined  to  them  in  seeking 
the  end  for  which  the  kingdom  exists.  Not  of  him- 
self apart  from  the  eternal  power  and  inspiration  is 
a  man  expected  to  become  a  true  member  of  this 
kingdom,  and  not  outside  of  communion  with  God 
is  the  working  force  of  the  kingdom  to  be  maintained. 
The  hope  of  success  is  built  on  God,  and  the  daily 
force  proceeds  from  him.  The  characteristic  life  of 
the  kingdom  is  a  Hfe  above  this  world,  Hved  in  per- 
sonal fellowship  with  God.  From  him  its  motives 
and  inspirations  proceed.  The  central  principle  of 
the  Christian  religion  sets  the  key.  The  various 
forms  of  Christian  experience  all  find  their  place  in 
the  kingdom  and  do  their  part  in  fulfiUing  its  ideal. 
Religion,  the  life  of  man  in  his  relation  to  God,  is 
the  realm  in  which  the  entire  work  of  the  kingdom 
goes  on,  and  the  ideal  man  of  the  kingdom  is  a  richly 
and  comprehensively  religious  man. 

(5)  Centred  thus  in  God  and  love,  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  a  kingdom  of  all  virtues.  The  principle  of 
this  kingdom  worthily  meets  the  comprehensive  need 
of  man,  for  it  provides  for  a  life  in  which  ethics  and 
religion,  personal  character  and  social  mission,  all 
come  fully  to  their  own.  God  is  all-good,  and  fellow- 
ship with  him  in  unselfish  love  and  service  is  a  soil 
in  which  all  human  virtues  grow.  The  world  does 
not  half  believe  it,  but  it  is  a  fact  that  the  spirit  of 
unselfish  service  is  a  grace  with  which  all  other  graces 


96  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

of  character,  of  whatever  kind,  harmoniously  blend. 
The  list  of  Christian  graces  has  been  read  with  ad- 
miration, and  the  graces  themselves  have  gladdened 
the  life  of  the  world,  in  all  Christian  time;  but  all  of 
them  are  "nothing  without  love."  And  any  virtues 
that  have  not  been  mentioned  in  that  Hst,  and  that 
rejoice  perhaps  not  to  call  themselves  Christian,  are 
thin  and  poor  if  this  grace  does  not  enrich  them.  The 
adaptation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  to  the  growth  of 
virtue  resides  in  the  simple  fact  that  virtue  grows 
at  the  best  advantage  when  something  is  being  done, 
and  the  kingdom  of  God  is  a  kingdom  of  work.  The 
appreciation  of  virtues  may  grow  in  the  cloister,  where 
men  meditate,  but  the  virtues  themselves  grow  in  the 
open  field.  It  is  life  that  rears  them,  and  there  is  no 
field  for  the  training  of  all  sorts  of  virtue  like  the 
kingdom  in  which  unselfish  service  is  the  law.  Of 
course  we  have  to  confess  that  the  growth  of  virtues 
in  the  kingdom  of  God  has  been  far  too  slow,  and  the 
development  is  far  from  perfect  even  yet.  For  this 
there  are  many  reasons,  one  of  which  is  that  Chris- 
tians have  so  greatly  misconceived  the  kingdom  and 
deprived  it  of  its  opportunity.  But  notwithstanding 
all  the  faults,  experience  reports  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  has  brought  forth  among  men  a  harvest  of 
virtue  for  which  the  whole  world  ought  to  give  God 
thanks.  The  graces  of  the  kingdom  are  genuine, 
and  are  growing  still.  When  multitudes  of  men  are 
loving  and  helping  one  another  better  than  they  are 
now,  they  will  be  better  men.  New  conditions  bring 
out  new  modes  of  goodness,  old  graces  take  new 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD  97 

forms,  character  assumes  new  richness  and  beauty 
when  new  occasions  put  it  to  new  tests. 

The  kingdom  of  God  represents  the  Christian  ideal 
for  the  life  of  mankind.  Having  viewed  it  in  broad 
outlook,  we  must  now  attend  to  some  teaching  in 
which  Jesus  fills  up  the  picture.  In  various  ways  he 
has  described  the  ideal  person,  life,  and  relations. 
And  when  we  know  what  he  wished  life  to  be,  we 
may  be  sure  that  we  know  the  best. 


V 

RIGHTEOUSNESS 

When  Jesus  desired  to  set  forth  the  character 
that  was  to  be  approved,  he  had  in  Hebrew  usage  a 
word  ready  to  his  use.  The  word  was  Righteous,  and 
its  kindred  noun  was  Righteousness.  By  necessity  he 
spoke  in  the  terminology  of  his  place  and  time,  not 
of  ours,  and  the  Hebrew  religion  had  prepared  for 
him  this  word. 

Its  meaning  is  of  the  simplest.  To  be  righteous 
is  to  be  right,  or  as  one  ought  to  be.  Righteousness, 
accordingly,  is  that  which  ought  to  be,  in  character 
or  in  conduct.  If  a  man  is  regarded  in  himself, 
righteousness  is  a  personal  character;  but  as  soon 
as  men  are  regarded  as  living  together,  righteousness 
becomes  also  a  social  character,  a  quality  of  rightness 
exhibited  in  mutual  relations.  The  meaning  is  most 
distinctly  and  searchingly  an  ethical  one,  and  the 
terms  never  lose  their  solemn  and  urgent  ethical 
significance.  It  is  important  to  note,  however,  that 
the  ancient  meaning  is  larger  and  less  restricted  than 
the  modern.  Very  much  of  the  modern  use  of  the 
word  makes  righteousness  synonymous  with  justice. 
A  righteous  God  is  a  just  God,  faithful  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  quid  pro  quo,  certain  to  exact  the  due, 

98 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  99 

and  a  righteous  man  is  one  of  whom  fairness  is  char- 
acteristic. But  the  Hebrew  use  is  broader.  Here 
righteousness  denotes  that  which  ought  to  be,  and 
that  includes  much  more  than  justice  or  strict  equity. 
In  the  Old  Testament  God  is  the  type  of  righteous- 
ness, of  course,  and  his  righteousness  was  taken  to 
include  his  generosity  as  well  as  his  justice,  his  faith- 
ful grace  as  well  as  his  faithful  severity.  It  covers 
the  certainty  of  his  kindness  and  his  watchfulness 
over  the  poor  and  needy  that  they  may  suffer  no 
wrong,  as  well  as  the  certainty  of  his  punishment  for 
those  who  do  the  wrong.  In  like  manner  in  the 
New  Testament  we  read :  "  If  we  confess  our  sins, 
he  is  faithful  and  righteous  to  forgive  us  our  sins, 
and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness.'*  It  is 
righteous  to  forgive  those  who  confess.  On  the  same 
principle  righteousness  in  man  is  of  comprehensive 
character,  including  in  general  the  goodness  that 
should  belong  to  man.  As  a  descriptive  term,  the 
word  righteous  is  appHed  to  those  who  are  right  in 
the  large,  the  ideal  and  acceptable  people. 

It  must  be  added  that  in  the  Old  Testament  right- 
eousness is  no  less  a  religious  grace  than  an  ethical 
quality.  It  is  never  separated  from  religion  or  re- 
garded as  existing  apart  from  right  relations  with 
God.  Just  as  in  the  Old  Testament  wisdom  is  at 
heart  religion  and  folly  is  the  same  as  ungodliness, 
so  righteousness  and  unrighteousness  are  separated 
by  the  religious  line.  The  Hebrew  thought  moves 
in  the  world  of  God.  Human  standards  are  insuf- 
ficient, and  so  are  human  motives:   to  be  righteous. 


100  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

a  man  must  be  godly,  ordering  his  life  by  God's 
standard  of  what  ought  to  be. 

The  insistence  of  Jesus  upon  righteousness  is  never 
less  clear  and  strong  than  that  of  the  Old  Testament. 
He  has  often  been  misunderstood  upon  this  point, 
and  his  gospel  has  been  set  over  against  the  claim 
for  actual  righteousness.  He  has  even  been  sup- 
posed to  offer  something  else  as  a  substitute  for  it, 
equally  acceptable  to  God.  This  he  has  been  thought 
to  do  because  in  the  sad  history  of  sinful  Hfe  righteous- 
ness had  become  impossible  to  men.  But  any  one 
who  has  been  accustomed  to  interpret  Jesus  in  this 
manner  should  make  a  careful  study  of  his  teaching, 
the  point  of  which  is  thus  completely  missed.  With 
all  the  force  of  divine  religion  he  insists  upon  right- 
eousness as  indispensable,  and  leaves  no  room  for  a 
doctrine  of  anything  to  take  its  place.  Any  unreal  or 
supposed  or  imputed  righteousness  stands  at  the 
opposite  pole  to  his  teaching.  Jesus  is  a  far  more 
complete  and  thorough-going  teacher  of  actual  right- 
eousness than  ever  the  Old  Testament  was.  With 
him,  too,  as  with  the  Old  Testament,  righteousness  is 
not  a  matter  of  ethics  merely,  but  of  religion  also. 
With  him  indeed  it  is  even  more  profoundly  inwrought 
with  religion,  since  with  him  all  the  higher  life  is  more 
personal  and  inward,  and  more  alive  with  God,  than 
the  Old  Testament  knew  how  to  make  it.  With  him 
the  motives  of  religion  are  motives  to  righteousness 
in  all  its  forms,  whether  personal  or  social,  ethical 
or  rehgious,  and  the  sufficient  righteousness  has  its 
source  in  the  deepest  religion  of  the  heart.     Here 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  ,  IDL 

again  we  find  the  ideal  for  human  character  grounded 
in  the  ideal  relation  of  man  to  God. 

It  is  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  that  we  find  the 
general  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  righteousness. 
It  is  commonly  thought  that  in  these  chapters  of  the 
First  Gospel  we  have  utterances  that  were  made  at 
various  times,  and  grouped  together  by  the  compiler 
of  the  book.  If  it  is  so,  they  have  been  wisely  col- 
lected and  arranged,  for  in  the  treatment  of  the 
present  topic  we  find  in  the  discourse  a  genuine  unity. 
Even  at  this  date  it  may  not  be  superfluous  to  note 
that  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  we  have  genuine 
Christian  teaching,  not,  as  many  readers  used  to  sup- 
pose, legalistic  teaching,  designed  to  break  the  way 
toward  the  Christian  gospel,  which  could  be  pro- 
claimed only  after  Christ  had  died.  It  has  been  so 
supposed  because  the  Christian  message  was  misun- 
derstood. This  teaching  is  thoroughly  characteristic 
of  Jesus,  and  is  of  the  substance  of  the  Christian  re- 
ligion. The  Master  addresses  his  disciples  primarily, 
but  he  addresses  them  both  as  disciples  and  as  men, 
telling  them  at  once  what  it  is  right  and  normal  for 
men  to  be  and  do,  and  what  he  expects  his  disciples 
to  be  and  do;  and  these  two  are  the  same.  His  in- 
struction here  is  as  truly  universal  as  any  that  was 
ever  uttered  in  human  speech,  for  he  declares  the 
indispensable  substance  of  the  real  righteousness. 
In  doing  this  he  shows  us  the  heart  of  the  Christian 
ideal. 

Among  the    Beatitudes   with   which   the   Sermon 


102  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

opens,  there  are  two  that  celebrate  righteousness,  and 
they  show  most  clearly  how  high  an  estimate  Jesus 
placed  upon  it.  In  the  first  his  congratulation  goes 
out  to  the  man  whose  longing  after  righteousness  is 
as  instinctive  and  irresistible  as  hunger  and  thirst; 
and  in  the  second,  to  the  man  whose  devotion  to 
righteousness  is  so  unalterable  as  to  hold  him  firm 
and  faithful  under  persecution  for  its  sake.  In  the  in- 
satiable yearning  for  righteousness,  certain  to  be  sat- 
isfied, and  in  unswerving  fidelity  to  righteousness, 
worthy  to  be  crowned,  Jesus  beholds  true  blessedness 
for  man.  To  those  who  endure  persecution  for 
righteousness'  sake  belongs  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Passing  beyond  the  Beatitudes,  we  soon  learn  more 
definitely  what  Jesus  meant  by  righteousness.  The 
term  is  ambiguous,  because  there  is  wide  difference 
in  men's  judgment  as  to  what  is  good,  but  Jesus 
makes  his  own  teaching  clear.  In  his  circle  of  life 
scribes  and  Pharisees  were  well-known  illustrations 
of  one  accepted  and  influential  conception  of  right- 
eousness. But  Jesus  declares  that  no  one  can  enter 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,  which  is  of  course  the  ideal 
state  upon  which  all  holy  hopes  are  set,  unless  he 
possesses  a  better  righteousness  than  theirs.  This 
was  most  radical  and  heretical  doctrine  when  he 
uttered  it,  and  though  the  change  of  times  has  made 
it  cease  to  be  heretical,  it  is  radical  and  searching 
doctrine  still. 

Jesus  did  not  mean  that  scribes  and  Pharisees  were 
necessarily  bad  men.  What  he  did  was  to  dispar- 
age the  righteousness  of  which  they  were  samples. 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  103 

There  Is  no  mystery  about  what  was  meant  by  the 
righteousness  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees.  It  may 
be  defined  as  the  goodness  which  consists  in  having 
done  what  God  has  specifically  commanded.  It  is 
the  righteousness  of  obedience  to  commandments. 

Even  yet  this  idea  of  righteousness  is  not  extinct 
among  Christians.  In  the  days  of  scribes  and  Phari- 
sees it  was  a  most  natural  conception.  The  Jewish 
people  were  Hving  under  an  elaborate  law  which 
represented  to  them  the  authority  of  God,  and  set 
before  them  what  God  desired  them  to  do.  Scribes 
and  Pharisees  were  trained  in  knowledge  of  it,  and 
knew  it  through  and  through.  They  counted  up  its 
commands,  and  made  them  out  to  be  six  hundred 
and  thirteen  in  all.  They  labored  to  obey  this  law 
of  God  in  minute  detail,  making  scrupulous  care 
a  matter  of  conscience.  What  more  could  God 
require  or  desire  of  them  than  obedience  to  the  law 
that  he  had  given  ?  Surely  they  who  were  zealous 
and  careful  in  doing  this  would  be  acceptable  to  him. 
So  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  knowing  that  they  were 
keeping  the  commandments,  judged  themselves  right- 
eous— that  is,  sufficiently  good,  right  in  ethics  and 
acceptable  to  God  in  religion. 

The  quality  of  a  righteousness  thus  sought  is  plain 
to  be  seen.  Self-righteousness,  in  view  of  external 
obedience,  was  the  natural  result.  The  principle  was 
the  simple  but  delusive  one  of  merit:  obedience  to 
the  law  deserved  the  approval  of  the  lawgiver,  and 
obtained  it.  Acceptance  with  God  was  earned  by 
the  doing  of  the  work,  and  the  work  was  the  man's 


104  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

own:  so,  therefore,  was  the  merit.  This  is  self- 
righteousness.  And  this  self-righteousness  was  sure 
to  be  grounded  mainly  in  external  obedience.  When 
meritorious  obedience  to  the  law  was  sought,  it  was 
inevitable  that  chief  attention  should  be  paid  to  the 
parts  of  the  law  that  could  be  obeyed  most  success- 
fully, and  in  which  obedience  could  be  most  easily 
observed  and  reckoned  up.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
greater  part  of  the  commandments  had  reference  to 
conduct,  which  was  visible  and  not  hard  to  estimate; 
and  it  was  perfectly  natural  that  righteousness  should 
be  sought  through  outward  conformity  to  the  letter 
of  the  law.  The  law  called  indeed  for  truth  in  the 
inward  parts;  but  that  could  be  taken  for  granted, 
while  conformity  in  the  outward  life  could  not. 
Thus  the  method  tended  to  produce  bondage  to  the 
letter  of  the  law,  and  indifference  to  its  deeper  spirit, 
and  self-righteousness  in  view  of  external  obedience 
is  a  true  name  for  that  which  followed.  Doubtless 
it  would  be  unjust  to  imagine  that  scribes  and  Phari- 
sees knew  nothing  of  any  better  religion  than  this, 
for  that  would  be  difficult  when  the  Psalms  and 
prophets  were  in  their  hands.  But  this  was  the  char- 
acter of  the  righteousness  which  their  system  of  life 
led  them  to  believe  that  they  possessed. 

This  is  legalism  in  religion,  which  was  powerfully 
encouraged  by  the  Jewish  system.  But  it  was  not 
there  alone,  for  it  is  so  natural  to  the  heart  of  man 
that  it  may  be  found  anywhere.  Man  loves  to  be- 
lieve that  he  is  earning  his  way  with  God.  Conceive 
of  obedience  to  elaborate  law,  or  to  positive  com- 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  105 

mands,  or  to  specific  moral  obligations,  as  the  suf- 
ficient way  to  please  God,  or  believe  that  by  obeying 
his  requirements  we  can  obtain  merit  and  win  his 
favor  by  deserving  it,  and  though  we  may  call  our- 
selves Christians  we  shall  be  in  the  company  of 
scribes  and  Pharisees  with  regard  to  righteousness. 
We  shall  attend  chiefly  to  externals,  carefully  watch 
our  performance  of  our  duties,  imagine  ourselves 
acceptable  to  God,  and  be  deeply  self-satisfied  in  the 
result.  Ethical  fife  can  be  conducted  in  this  manner, 
and  so  can  religious,  and  such  conduct  of  life  is  com- 
patible with  a  good  deal  of  earnestness  in  the  desire 
to  be  acceptable  to  God. 

From  the  assertion  of  the  claim  for  a  better  right- 
eousness Jesus  proceeds  to  show  what  it  consists  in. 
His  way  to  the  point  is  very  short. 

"No,"  he  says  in  effect,  "it  is  not  enough  to  con- 
form to  the  express  commands  of  God.  The  law  says, 
Thou  shalt  not  kill;  but  I  say  unto  you  that  a  man 
may  be  a  murderer  without  killing.  Hatred  and 
anger  suffice  to  make  a  man  a  murderer  at  heart." 
It  is  plain  that  if  a  man  is  to  be  righteous  he  must  be 
in  no  sense  a  murderer.  For  one  who  wills  the  death 
of  another  in  hatred  or  in  wrath,  it  is  an  evasion 
before  God  to  say,  "I  have  not  killed  him"  Such 
a  man  is  a  murderer,  although  he  has  done  no  mur- 
der. So  righteousness  calls  for  more  than  the  word  of 
the  law  demands.     It  requires  being  as  well  as  doing. 

He  shows  it  again.  The  law  forbids  committing 
adultery.  "But  I  say  unto  you,"  says  Jesus,  that 
adultery  may  be  committed  without  the  act.     The 


106  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

greedy  gaze  of  lust,  intended  to  keep  warm  the  un- 
lawful longing,  is  adultery.  It  is  adultery  where  the 
passion  is,  namely,  in  the  heart.  There  may  be  none 
in  the  flesh,  but  in  the  heart  that  which  the  law 
forbids  exists,  and  the  man  is  an  adulterer  there.  In 
order  to  have  the  better  righteousness,  a  man  must 
be  no  adulterer,  either  in  the  flesh  or  in  the  heart: 
the  real  self  must  be  no  adulterer.  The  freedom  from 
the  sin  must  belong  not  to  the  man's  actions,  but  to 
himself. 

These  interpretations  and  deepenings  of  the  ancient 
law  lead  us  to  understand  what  Jesus  meant  by  the 
better  righteousness  which  he  calls  indispensable. 
It  consists  not  in  doing  what  one  is  required  to  do, 
but  in  being  what  one  ought  to  be.  It  is  personal 
rightness,  rightness  in  character.  As  soon  as  we 
have  truly  caught  the  tone  of  Jesus'  voice  in  his  teach- 
ing, we  wonder  how  men  can  have  thought  that  a  real 
righteousness  could  inhere  in  their  doings.  In  his 
presence  how  plain  it  is  that  righteousness  must  in- 
here in  men  themselves!  It  is  a  personal  fact.  He 
did  not  conceive  that  God's  claims  have  been  ade- 
quately expressed  in  commandments  or  could  be 
so  expressed.  With  him  the  relation  between  God 
and  man  never  appears  as  a  legal  one:  it  is  always  a 
personal  relation;  and  thence  it  follows  that  a  right- 
eousness that  God  can  approve  must  be  a  solid  per- 
sonal righteousness.  In  his  sight  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  law  righteousness,  or  righteousness  of  works, 
or  righteousness  of  merit.  All  these  are  ruled  out 
by  the  necessity  that  righteousness  be  the  man's  own, 


1 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  107 

resident  in  himself.  So  we  find  Jesus  calling  for 
real  personal  rightness  of  heart  and  will  before  God, 
truth  in  the  inward  parts,  to  be  expressed  in  the  con- 
duct; and  he  would  have  us  judge  the  conduct  not 
by  comparison  with  commandments  or  by  estimating 
what  it  deserves,  but  as  exactly  what  it  is,  in  the  light 
of  the  character  that  inspired  it,  its  conformity  to 
the  mind  of  God,  and  its  value  for  good  ends.  It 
is  morally  axiomatic  that  this  is  the  true  ideal  of 
righteousness. 

In  this  re-estimating  of  righteousness  we  see  at 
a  glance  how  ethics  and  religion  are  inextricably 
wrought  together  in  the  ideal  of  Jesus.  He  cannot 
contemplate  one  without  the  other.  If  we  try  to  dis- 
tribute his  discourse  between  the  two,  they  appear 
as  two  sides  of  the  same  reality.  One  cannot  be 
acceptable  to  God  save  as  he  hold  a  sound  ethical 
position,  and  one  cannot  hold  a  sound  ethical  position 
except  his  inmost  self  be  devoted  to  God.  The  ideal 
picture  shows  us  a  real  man  living  in  real  moral 
goodness  through  real  religious  devotion  to  God. 

In  another  connection  I  have  already  spoken  of 
the  sayings  that  follow,  concerning  oaths  and  swear- 
ing, and  concerning  revenge  and  generosity.  But 
their  testimony  to  the  better  righteousness  must  be 
mentioned  here.  Instead  of  claiming  confirmation 
for  your  word,  says  Jesus,  and  making  it  a  matter  of 
conscience  to  keep  the  word  that  you  have  sworn  to,  be 
a  man  whose  word  needs  no  confirmation.  Instead 
of  accepting  the  privilege  of  retaliation,  and  measur- 
ing what  you  take  in  accordance  with  the  law,  be  a 


108  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

man  who  will  not  retaliate,  but  will  go  to  the  very 
opposite  extreme  in  returning  good  for  evil.  Such 
reality  is  the  ideal  of  righteousness. 

Now  it  must  be  noticed  how  far  Jesus  has  gone  be- 
yond the  individualistic  field  in  the  enunciation  of  his 
ideal.  In  the  cases  already  cited  he  has  been  treat- 
ing of  righteousness  in  its  social  aspects.  It  belongs 
to  a  man  not  merely  as  a  being  by  himself,  or  as  a 
soul  related  to  his  God,  but  not  less  as  a  member  of 
the  human  family.  To  murder  man,  to  sin  against 
woman,  to  speak  the  truth  or  not,  to  take  revenge  or 
render  good  for  evil,  these  are  social  matters,  and  the 
righteousness  that  inspires  worthy  conduct  in  these 
fields  is  a  social  fact.  No  narrowly  individualistic 
thing  is  that  which  Jesus  is  speaking  of.  Not  even  in 
the  two  Beatitudes  is  it  to  be  interpreted  in  individu- 
alistic fashion.  When  a  man  rightly  hungers  and 
thirsts  after  righteousness  he  longs  for  it  to  be  in  all 
others  and  in  the  common  Hfe,  as  well  as  in  himself. 
When  a  man  has  been  persecuted  for  righteousness' 
sake,  it  is  usually  for  making  some  social  appHcation 
of  righteousness  that  he  has  been  made  to  suffer.  So 
Jesus  has  all  the  time  been  speaking  words  of  social 
significance.  But  now  he  comes  to  love  and  hatred, 
and  thus  goes  deepest  into  the  social  quality  that  be- 
longs to  the  better  righteousness.  Now  he  appeals 
to  his  hearers  to  substitute  the  social  virtue  for  the 
social  vice,  love  that  saves  the  race  for  hatred  that 
corrupts  it.  For  love  is  the  bond  of  society,  while 
hatred  is  the  anti-social  force. 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  109 

Jesus  quotes  from  the  ancient  law  the  command, 
"Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor,"  but  does  not  dwell 
upon  it.  The  emphasis  falls  upon  the  contradictory 
expansion  of  it,  "Thou  shalt  hate  thine  enemy." 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  were  not  responsible  for  this 
perversion,  for  it  was  simply  a  survival  of  immemorial 
barbaric  tribalism,  which  counted  all  but  kinsmen  as 
enemies  and  reckoned  it  a  virtue  to  hate  them.  But 
though  they  were  expounders  of  the  law  they  had  not 
had  insight  and  vitality  enough  to  shake  off  this  ab- 
solute contradiction  of  its  Intent.  Their  idea  of  duty 
had  been  so  external  as  to  blind  them  to  the  deep 
necessity  of  the  call  for  love,  and  permitted  them  to 
retain  without  protest  this  inherited  contradiction. 
That  love  must  be  a  vital  thing  in  the  lover,  and 
therefore  free  to  flow  out  toward  all,  and  that  love 
for  enemies  is  a  diviner  thing  than  love  for  friends, 
were  truths  for  which  they  had  no  perception.  Their 
righteousness  had  had  no  power  to  protect  love  from 
this  dreadful  perversion:  it  had  even  permitted  them 
to  read  the  distorted  precept  in  as  an  addition  to  the 
law  of  God.  But  Jesus  announces  as  the  ideal,  and 
as  a  trait  in  the  better  righteousness,  a  love  that  sur- 
passes and  supersedes  the  motives  to  hatred,  casts 
out  enmity,  and  adopts  the  enemy  into  helpful  and 
redemptive  ministration.  It  is  the  highest  love  that 
men  know,  and  it  is  so  vitally  a  part  of  the  man  him- 
self that  he  cannot  fail  to  act  upon  it. 

That  this  is  the  real  righteousness  Jesus  indicates 
by  showing  its  source  and  affinities.  This  love  is  god- 
like.    It  is  no  virtue  to  love  your  friends,  he  says. 


110  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

but  to  love  your  enemies  is  to  Imitate  the  matchless 
work  of  God — nay,  it  is  to  exercise  a  grace  derived 
from  him.  It  Is  a  part  of  sonshlp.  *'Love  your 
enemies,"  says  Jesus,  "because  God  loves  his  and 
deals  gently  v^Ith  them.  You  are  his  children,  and 
the  goodness  of  your  Father  is  the  type  for  you.  Per- 
fect In  his  manner  you  are  to  be,  and  must  seek  to 
be."  Broad,  free,  impartial  love  to  men  is  the  child's 
likeness  to  the  Father,  the  human  reproduction  of 
the  eternal  heart  of  God;  it  Is  the  crown  of  good- 
ness in  all  character,  human  or  divine.  How  lofty 
is  this  teaching,  and  how  self-commending!  The 
quality  that  is  real  In  God  is  to  be  real  in  men,  and 
the  Christian  Ideal  Is  attained  in  proportion  as  this 
comes  to  pass. 

The  discourse  upon  the  Mount  now  changes,  though 
the  same  spiritual  strain  continues.  After  Insisting 
upon  reality,  genuineness,  the  solid  fact.  In  human 
goodness,  Jesus  speaks  of  certain  acts  of  religious 
service,  and  of  two  ways  in  which  they  may  be  per- 
formed. He  does  not  claim  now  to  be  exhibiting  the 
righteousness  of  scribes  and  Pharisees  at  work,  but 
he  did  so,  and  his  hearers  must  have  recognized  the 
picture.  Over  against  this  he  placed  the  operation  of 
the  genuine  righteousness  In  this  field,  and  portrayed 
the  true  ideal  of  religious  service.  Here  again  we 
see  how  vain  the  attempt  must  be  to  draw  a  clear  Hne 
between  ethics  and  religion  In  his  teaching. 
\  He  speaks  now  of  the  hypocrites,  and  the  manner 

in  which  they  perform  religious  service.     A  hypocrite 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  111 

IS  an  actor,  and  hypocrisy  Is  playing  a  part.  Perhaps 
it  might  have  been  better  if  the  words  had  been  thus 
translated.  In  Jesus'  usage  here,  hypocrisy  consists 
in  doing  something  that  ought  to  have  a  serious 
meaning,  not  only  without  that  meaning,  but  with 
some  other  instead.  It  is  doing  reHgious  acts  with 
a  motive  that  is  something  else  than  religious.  For 
such  conduct  hypocrisy,  or  acting,  was  a  good  name, 
and  still  is.  The  acts  are  religious,  but  the  ethical 
insincerity  nulHfies  the  religion. 

He  illustrates  from  almsgiving,  prayer,  and  fasting, 
acts  well  known  in  his  circle  as  acts  of  religion.  All 
three  are  expressive  of  loyalty  to  God,  and  the  very 
performing  of  them  is  an  unspoken  acknowledgment 
of  him.  Nevertheless  some  perform  them  not  unto 
God,  but  to  be  seen  by  men.  Their  desire  is  that  men 
may  admire  their  piety,  and  so  they  plan  to  perform 
these  acts  openly  and  elaborately.  They  address 
them  professedly  to  God,  but  really  to  the  spectators, 
for  effect.  So  their  service  is  a  mere  show,  like  play- 
acting; it  not  only  lacks  the  meaning  that  it  professes, 
but  bears  another  that  belies  the  profession.  It  has 
no  moral  value,  for  it  is  unreal:  it  has  no  reality  In 
the  men  themselves.  Those  who  deal  in  such  false 
show  may  indeed  have  their  reward,  such  as  they  are 
seeking,  for  they  do  get  some  foolish  admiration,  for 
a  while;  but  this  is  all  that  is  coming  to  them,  and 
the  blessing  of  the  Father  Is  not  included.  What  is 
wanted  is  reality.  Let  almsgiving  be  secret,  let 
prayer  be  with  God  alone,  let  fasting  be  unprofessed 
and  invisible.     The  one  to  be  considered  is  the  Father 


112  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

who  is  in  secret  and  sees  in  secret.  He  knows  the 
service  for  exactly  what  it  is,  and  has  power  to  rec- 
ompense it  with  divine  acknowledgment.  This  is 
obviously  right:  what  is  done  unto  God,  unto  God  let 
it  be  done.  Then  things  will  be  what  they  seem,  and 
this  is  the  ideal  way:  prayer  will  not  be  pretence, 
nor  almsgiving  ostentation,  nor  fasting  an  empty 
show.  It  is  necessary,  and  it  is  enough,  that  he  who 
sees  in  secret  should  find  there  the  same  thing  that  is 
done  in  public. 

In  the  same  strain  with  this  is  the  great  word  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel:  "God  is  a  Spirit,  and  they  that  wor- 
ship him  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth." 
Here  speaks  true  inward  religion:  here  is  the  ideal 
approach  of  man  to  God.  God  the  Spirit  can  be 
worshipped  only  by  man  the  spirit.  The  acceptable 
worship  is  simple,  direct,  and  genuine,  face  to  face 
and  heart  to  heart,  independent  of  external  things, 
no  forms  relied  upon  as  indispensable,  no  inter- 
mediaries interfering  between  God  and  the  soul,  no 
sacred  places  accounted  necessary,  only  spirit  and 
truth,  genuineness  and  sincerity,  reality  of  worship 
within,  opening  of  spirit  to  Spirit,  making  up  the 
substance  of  the  act. ' 

The  First  Gospel  contains  another  passage,  of  far 
different  tone,  in  which  hypocrisy  is  largely  illus- 
trated and  is  charged  home  upon  scribes  and  Phari- 
sees. Dealing  as  before  with  false  pretence,  Jesus 
utters  a  startling  series  of  woes,  denouncing  the 
hypocrites  whom  he  met  in  actual  life,  driving  home 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  113 

the  same  demand  for  inward  reality  that  we  have 
heard  him  proclaim.  Men  of  high  professions 
proved  false  by  voluntary  bad  practice  he  denounces 
without  stint.  He  accuses  them  of  living  a  hfe  that 
belies  their  teaching;  of  being  enemies  to  that  king- 
dom of  heaven  of  which  they  speak  with  reverence 
and  hope,  refusing  it  for  themselves  and  forbidding 
it  to  others;  of  eagerly  making  proselytes  to  the  law, 
whom  they  immediately  initiate  deep  into  their  own 
wickedness;  of  solemn  trifling  with  oaths,  deliber- 
ately minimizing  the  claims  of  the  divine  sanctity; 
of  extreme  punctiliousness  about  the  minutiae  of  the 
law,  while  they  ignore  the  great  moral  duties  to  which 
it  bears  witness;  of  laying  great  stress  upon  a  fair 
exterior,  while  they  make  a  reputable  life  a  cover  for 
hidden  iniquity;  of  vain  boasting  of  their  superiority 
to  their  fathers  who  killed  the  prophets,  when  they 
are  about  to  kill  the  Christ.  In  this  great  condemna- 
tion we  hear  the  same  strain  against  hypocrisy  that 
we  have  heard  before.  It  denounces  falseness  in  re- 
ligion as  crime  in  ethics.  It  has  sometimes  been  itself 
condemned  as  excessive,  and  considered  impossible 
on  the  lips  of  that  Jesus  whose  gentle  spirit  we  know 
elsewhere.  But  in  fact  the  thought  that  runs  through 
it  is  precisely  identical  with  that  of  his  other  teaching 
on  hypocrisy;  and  as  for  the  tone  of  It,  shall  he  not 
be  allowed  to  burn  with  indignation  at  systematic 
falseness  under  the  name  of  religion  ?  If  he  were 
incapable  of  such  wrath  he  would  be  no  true  son  of 
God. 

Contrast  for  a  moment  this  hypocritic  spirit  with 


114  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

the  spirit  of  the  fifty-first  Psalm,  the  solemn  prayer 
of  penitence,  the  classic  in  its  kind.  There,  what 
honesty  in  confession,  what  consciousness  of  the 
seriousness  of  sin,  what  longing  for  inward  genuine- 
ness, what  reliance  upon  the  forgiving  grace  of  God ! 
Here  is  reality,  truth  in  the  inward  parts.  The 
spirit  condemned  in  the  twenty-third  of  Matthew 
and  the  spirit  expressed  in  the  fifty-first  Psalm 
are  at  the  extreme  opposite  poles  in  religion.  The 
psalmist  knew  something  of  the  better  righteousness, 
as  indeed  the  humble  and  simple-hearted  have  done 
in  all  ages. 

In  parable  Jesus  drew  the  same  contrast,  bring- 
ing out  the  true  righteousness  as  against  the  Phari- 
saic. A  Pharisee,  self-righteous,  stands  "praying  with 
himself,"  although  he  speaks  to  God.  He  is  self- 
conscious,  ignorant  of  himself,  proud,  ostentatious, 
glorying  in  imagined  goodness  of  his  own  producing. 
He  thanks  God  for  his  superiority  to  other  men, 
and  gives  him  an  account  of  it.  A  publican  close  by, 
despised  by  the  Pharisee  and  cited  to  God  as  an 
example  of  what  he  is  not,  knows  himself  a  sinner, 
deals  honestly  with  himself,  takes  the  sinner's  place 
before  God,  bows  in  humility  and  penitence,  claims 
nothing  and  asks  all,  offers  his  prayer  and  ceases, 
and  in  all  this  is  true  to  the  holy  spirit  of  reality. 
Jesus  records  the  result  by  saying,  "This  man  went 
down  to  his  house  justified — accepted  as  righteous — 
rather  than  the  other."  Righteousness  was  not  im- 
puted to  him:  he  had  it.  He  was  accepted  as  right, 
for  the  reason  that  he  was  right:  he  was  taking  the 


RIGHTEOUSNESS  115 

only  right  position  for  a  sinful  man  to  hold.  He 
was  humbling  himself  before  God  in  spirit  and  in 
truth,  and  really  asking  what  his  soul  was  in  need  of. 
Here  was  the  better  righteousness,  and  this  was  the 
man  for  the  righteous  God  to  accept. 

How  clear  are  these  teachings  about  the  nature 
of  the  better  righteousness,  and  how  simple  is  that 
righteousness  itself!  What  Jesus  calls  for  is  reality 
in  worthy  character,  goodness,  genuine  and  uncon- 
tradicted, a  heart  sincere,  working  consistently  in 
life.  Nothing  false  must  intrude,  nothing  formal 
or  artificial  must  take  the  place  of  the  real  tightness. 
Jesus  never  said,  "  Be  real,'*  for  that  mode  of  speech 
is  too  modern  to  be  his,  but  the  words  exactly  repre- 
sent him,  and  from  this  simple  demand  he  never 
varies.  "Not  every  one  that  saith  to  me  Lord,  Lord, 
shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  he  that 
doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven." 

"Not  he  that  nameth  the  name, 
But  he  that  doeth  the  will." 

In  ethics,  of  course,  this  is  the  simplest  possible  teach- 
ing. It  is  not  pecuHar  to  Jesus,  and  cannot  be  pe- 
culiar to  any  one,  for  it  is  the  universal  first  truth 
in  morality — nothing  is  good  but  real  goodness. 
The  teaching  is  axiomatic  and  self-evidencing.  It 
needs  various  expounding,  applying,  and  enforcing, 
but  no  proving:  no  conscience  or  judgment  has  any 
right  to  dissent  from  it.  This  central  truth  in  all 
sound  morality  Jesus  set  forth  with  unparalleled  im- 


116  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

pressiveness.  And  when  we  pass  over  into  the  sphere 
of  religion,  we  find  him  applying  to  religion  also  this 
first  principle  of  good  morals,  and  insisting  that  re- 
ligion itself  consists  in  this  same  inward  reality  and 
genuineness.  How  great  a  service  he  did  to  religion 
by  presenting  this  as  the  ideal,  we  shall  see  as  we 
proceed.  At  present  it  is  enough  to  say  that  to  re- 
lig;ion  this  teaching  is  a  charter  both  of  liberty  and  of 
power. 

Some  Christians  have  wondered  why  they  found 
it  difficult  to  show  that  the  teaching  of  Jesus  was 
strictly  peculiar  to  himself.  But  as  for  the  present 
matter,  if  he  had  taught  a  doctrine  of  righteousness 
that  was  solely  his  own,  that  would  have  meant  that 
it  was  a  specialty  and  a  partial  doctrine,  upon  which 
some  other  teacher  might  improve.  There  is  only 
one  central  conception  and  ideal  of  righteousness,  and 
here  the  doctrine  of  Jesus  is  universal  and  necessary 
truth.  It  can  take  a  thousand  forms  in  appHcation, 
but  nothing  can  be  substituted  for  it.  The  peculiar- 
ity of  Jesus  is  that  he  interprets  righteousness  in 
the  light  of  a  better  conception  of  God,  and  of  the 
relation  that  man  sustains  to  God,  than  has  been 
known  elsewhere.  According  to  him,  it  is  through 
the  ideal  relation  of  man  to  God  that  the  ideal  of 
righteousness  is  to  be  made  real;  and  this  we  must 
now  consider. 


VI 

THE  TWOFOLD  LAW  OF  LOVE 

When  we  listened  to  Jesus  discoursing  of  right- 
eousness, we  heard  him  emphasize  the  need  of  inward 
reaHty,  the  true  fact  of  goodness  before  God,  as 
against  satisfaction  with  outward  performances  and 
proprieties;  but  we  did  not  hear  a  very  large  ac- 
count of  the  traits  that  compose  the  character  that 
must  be  so  genuine.  Yet  of  course  he  will  tell  us 
this  in  his  own  way,  as  he  must  if  his  teaching  is  to 
be  effective.  Hearers  are  too  often  content  with 
being  exhorted  to  be  genuine,  without  insisting  upon 
an  answer  to  the  question,  "Genuine  in  what?" 
Some  of  the  teaching  that  fills  out  his  ideal  of  human 
character  and  relation  to  God  must  now  pass  before 
us.  If  we  are  to  place  the  elements  that  compose  it 
in  the  right  proportion,  we  cannot  do  otherwise  than 
place  at  the  front  his  citation  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment of  the  Twofold  Law  of  Love,  love  to  God  and 
men,  and  the  estimate  that  he  set  upon  its  value. 
Here  again  is  a  word  that  goes  to  the  very  heart  both 
of  ethics  and  of  religion,  and  gives  revealing  light 
upon  the  Christian  ideal  in  both. 

From  a  Pharisee  came  the  question,  "What  is  the 

greatest  command  in  the  law?" — or,  as  the  Second 

117 


118  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

Gospel  gives  it,  "What  manner  of  command  is  first 
of  all  ?"  If  we  may  trust  the  language  as  precisely 
given,  the  questioner  did  not  desire  Jesus  simply  to 
select  one  command  from  the  list  and  designate  it  as 
the  greatest.  He  seems  to  have  been  asking  for  a 
judgment  as  to  the  character  that  a  command  must 
bear  in  order  to  be  the  most  important — a  far  better 
question  than  the  other  would  have  been.  The  Jews 
were  often  discussing  which  was  the  most  important 
of  the  ceremonial  commands,  and  on  that  point  there 
were  various  opinions.  But  as  to  the  supreme  re- 
quirement in  the  whole  divine  economy  of  old,  they 
all  knew  what  that  was  understood  to  be.  The 
ancient  word  was,  **Hear,  O  Israel:  the  Lord  thy 
God  is  one  Lord;  and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  might."  Probably  the  enumeration  in 
the  command  was  designed  rather  for  emphasis  than 
for  analysis.  It  was  not  intended  to  divide  the  man 
into  parts  and  bid  him  love  God  separately  with  each 
of  them.  The  meaning  is  rather,  "  Love  God  with  all 
the  parts  and  powers  thou  hast,  and  with  the  full 
energy  of  them  all."  By  common  understanding 
this  was  the  first  and  great  commandment.  Through 
a  curious  blending  of  formality  and  seriousness,  the 
words  of  this  supreme  command  were  stored  in  every 
phylactery.  If  the  inquiring  Pharisee  wore  phylac- 
teries in  full  number,  as  he  may  have  done,  he  had 
the  answer  to  his  question  bound  upon  his  hand,  his 
forehead,  and  his  heart  when  he  propounded  his 
question.     And  Jesus  responded  as  any  thoughtful 


THE  TWOFOLD   LAW   OF  LOVE  119 

Jew  would  expect,  giving  the  answer  alike  of  the  for- 
malist and  of  the  spiritual  reader  of  the  law:  "This  is 
the  first  and  great  commandment."  Love  to  God 
ranked  above  all.  This  was  the  kind  of  law  to  which 
the  first  place  belonged — a  law  of  the  spirit  and  a 
law  of  love;  a  law,  too,  that  bound  a  man  directly 
to  God  himself. 

When  Jesus  cites  this  as  the  crown  of  the  law,  he 
does  not  mean  that  this  is  the  crown  of  legalism  or  of 
the  legal  system.  It  is  not,  for  legalism  does  not  reach 
so  high.  By  the  law  he  meant  the  ancient  instruction 
of  God,  companion  in  his  mind  with  the  prophets, 
who  were  God's  teaching  representatives.  He  meant 
to  say,  "This  first  have  men  been  divinely  taught,  that 
with  all  their  powers  they  must  love  their  God."  In 
this  Hght  it  is  not  strange  that  the  first  command 
of  the  law  has  always  been  understood  to  have  been 
adopted  here  as  first  also  in  the  gospel.  There  is  no 
touch  of  the  spirit  of  legalism  in  the  command  or  in 
Jesus'  use  of  it.  In  either  Testament  it  stands  forth 
simply  as  the  first  requirement  in  sound  religion. 
When  Jesus  proclaimed  this  as  the  first  and  great 
commandment,  he  was  not  inventing  a  law,  nor  was 
he  adopting  one  that  had  been  invented  in  Hebraism: 
he  was  simply  recognizing  the  first  great  duty  and 
privilege  of  man,  known  of  old  and  now  declared 
again.  This  was  a  command  so  fundamental  that 
it  could  stand  nowhere  but  in  the  first  place  in  any 
revelation  from  God.  Thus  it  was  that  he  answered 
the  request  not  merely  for  a  command  selected  as  the 
first,  but  for  a  command  that  must  needs  be  the  first. 


120  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

We  should  misunderstand  Jesus,  therefore,  if  we 
were  to  associate  this  command  solely  with  his  au- 
thority, and  imagine  that  it  was  binding  because  he 
gave  it.  Not  so:  he  gave  it  because  it  was  binding. 
He  was  proclaiming  a  law  of  normal  life,  as  wide  in 
its  range  as  the  existence  of  intelligent  beings,  and  he 
was  proclaiming  the  primacy  of  that  law.  This  is 
the  ideal  attitude  of  spiritual  beings  toward  their 
God:  there  is  One  above  the  soul,  and  that  One  is  to 
be  loved:  the  soul  must  look  up  with  love  to  God. 
Teaching  men  to  live,  Jesus  gave,  then,  this  as  the  first 
law  of  their  living.  In  this  again  we  encounter  the 
axiomatic  and  self-evidencing  nature  of  his  moral  in- 
struction. This  law  is  independent  of  external  au- 
thority. It  is  very  true  that  for  his  friends  and  fol- 
lowers his  authority  as  their  Master  may  stand  as  a 
reason  why  they  have  received  it  as  the  law  of  their 
life.  It  is  matter  of  history  that  he  associated  it 
with  himself,  and  gave  it  for  them  the  authority  of 
his  Mastership.  Nevertheless  it  remains  true  that 
Jesus  could  never  make  it  our  duty  to  love  God  by 
commanding  it.  Not  even  God  himself  could  do  that. 
It  is  our  duty,  and  therefore  Jesus  commands  it;  our 
privilege,  and  therefore  he  points  it  out.  This  is  no 
merely  Christian  duty,  supported  by  his  authority, 
nor  does  he  ever  claim  it  as  such.  He  is  simply 
requiring  what  is  required,  and  holding  up  the  true 
ideal. 

Accordingly  neither  here  nor  elsewhere  do  we  find 
him  giving  reasons  for  loving  God.  In  any  case  it 
would  not  be  in  keeping  with  his  method  to  do  so. 


THE  TWOFOLD  LAW  OF  LOVE  121 

and  It  is  plain  also  that  to  his  own  heart  there  was  no 
need  of  argument  or  illustration  to  justify  this  great 
first  love.  To  him  the  love  was  as  natural  as  life. 
Nevertheless  he  did  imply  a  reason  for  loving  God, 
and  by  implying  commended  it  to  us.  It  is  a  reason 
that  comes  from  him  with  ineffable  sweetness.  In 
his  clear  call  to  love  God  it  is  implied  that  God  is 
lovable.  The  lovableness  of  God,  which  is  a  primary 
fact  for  successful  moral  and  religious  life  in  man,  is 
as  truly  proclaimed  by  Jesus  as  if  he  had  put  it  into 
words.  "Love  God,"  he  says  in  substance:  "you 
can.  Do  not  be  afraid  to  commit  yourself  to  love 
toward  him  with  all  your  heart  and  soul  and  might, 
for  he  is  lovable  to  the  uttermost,  and  you  will  find 
him  so.  He  will  not  disappoint  you."  By  calling 
us  to  love  God  utterly,  Jesus  pledges  to  us  his  word 
of  honor,  as  it  were,  that  we  shall  find  him  able  to  win 
our  love,  and  worthy  of  it  forever. 

Of  course  the  lovableness  of  God  was  implied  in 
the  ancient  law,  as  it  must  be  in  any  reasonable  call 
to  love.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  spiritual  training 
of  Israel  bore  its  supreme  fruit  in  the  growing  recog- 
nition of  God  as  worthy  of  the  best  affection  of  man, 
and  as  able  to  hold  it.  But  the  ancient  affirmation 
was  necessarily  less  full  of  meaning  than  the  later, 
for  God  was  not  so  well  known  of  old,  and  by  no  lips 
but  those  of  Jesus  could  his  lovableness  be  set  forth 
with  such  convincing  power.  He  knew  it  himself 
with  so  true  a  knowledge  that  his  announcement  was 
a  perfect  testimony. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  this  call  for  love 
to  God,  Jesus  does  not  introduce  his  favorite  name 


122  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

and  say,  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  Father.'*  He  re- 
tains the  old  form  of  speech,  and  simply  presents  the 
object  of  affection  as  **the  Lord  thy  God/'  More- 
over, the  addition  **thy  God"  obtains  somew^hat  of 
new  meaning  upon  his  lips.  It  was  to  Israel  that  the 
old  law  was  addressed,  and  in  the  first  instance  it 
was  a  nation's  affectionate  loyalty  that  was  demanded 
for  the  nation's  God.  But  with  Jesus  the  unit  in  re- 
ligion is  the  individual,  and  the  love  for  which  he 
calls  is  personal,  the  loyal  affection  of  a  loving  soul. 
In  the  old  time,  also,  God  was  regarded  as  especially 
Israel's  own,  and  the  possessive  word  was  often 
taken  to  indicate  an  exclusive  right  to  his  favor, 
meaning  "thy  God  as  he  is,  not  the  God  of  other  peo- 
ples." But  Jesus  knows  nothing  of  any  such  exclu- 
siveness  or  tribal  privilege,  and  as  he  utters  it, 
"thy  God"  is  addressed  to  any  one,  and  is  a  term  of 
universality.  The  law  is  for  all :  every  one  must  love 
his  God :  no  one  can  live  aright  without  him,  and  so 
good  is  he  that  nothing  but  love  suits  the  case  of  men 
in  their  dealings  with  him.  Really  to  know  him 
is  to  love  him,  and  he  who  loves  him  not  knows 
him  not  as  he  is.  Hence  the  preciousness  of  any 
revelation,  and  especially  of  Jesus'  own,  in  which 
God  is  manifested  so  clearly  in  his  loveworthiness. 
Amid  all  the  calls  to  doubt  and  distrust  of  which  our 
life  is  so  full,  it  is  unspeakably  refreshing  to  hear 
the  beloved  and  trustworthy  voice  of  Jesus  calling  us 
to  a  love  which  the  infinite  worthiness  of  God  will 
satisfy  forever. 

What  this  implication  of  the  lovableness  of  God 


THE  TWOFOLD  LAW  OF  LOVE  123 

is  to  religion,  we  can  see  at  once.  Here  is  the  funda- 
mental defect  of  the  religions  of  the  world:  the  na- 
tions have  not  become  acquainted  with  a  God  who 
could  command  the  best  love  that  they  were  able  to 
give.  The  only  God  who  can  do  that  is  the  God 
and  Father  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  known  in  the 
best  experience  of  the  heart.  From  communion  with 
a  God  thus  lovable  and  adorable  there  may  come  forth 
a  religion  into  which  the  glory  and  honor  of  the  na- 
tions may  indeed  be  brought.  And  the  lovableness 
of  God  is  as  great  a  fact  for  ethics  as  it  is  for  religion. 
It  means  that  the  moral  order  to  which  human  ethics 
responds  is  grounded  in  a  goodness  which  the  best 
in  man  can  delight  in  with  the  joy  of  love.  Without 
such  a  substratum  in  the  dehghtfulness  of  God,  hu- 
man ethics  must  lack  the  sense  of  confidence  and 
hope  that  is  necessary  to  the  best  moral  life.  But 
when  we  can  say,  "The  God  of  our  conscience  is  the 
God  of  our  hearts,"  the  moral  life  is  transfigured 
and  walks  in  gladness. 

I  wish  that  we  could  see  just  what  Jesus  himself 
was  thinking  of  when  he  spoke  of  love  to  God,  but 
that  would  imply  vision  into  his  own  soul.  If  we 
could  discern  what  his  own  love  was,  we  might  see 
more  clearly  what  kind  of  affection  on  our  part  would 
fill  out  the  meaning  of  the  law.  There  are  various 
types  of  love,  corresponding  partly  to  differences  in 
temperament,  and  the  Christian  love  to  God  has  been 
conceived  in  m.any  ways  by  Christian  people.  Aside 
from  differences  in  temperament,  various  conditions 


124  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

of  life  and  varieties  of  religious  thought  have  led 
to  different  experiences  of  this  love,  and  different 
expositions  of  it.  Sometimes  the  Christian  love  to 
God  is  a  grateful  response  to  divine  grace;  sometimes 
a  meditative  joy,  an  admiring  approval  of  character 
and  adoration  of  the  perfect  One;  sometimes  a  silent 
and  inward  mystical  affection,  trembling  and  raptur- 
ous; sometimes  a  longing  that  knows  no  rest  for 
deeper  acquaintance  and  better  fellowship;  some- 
times an  enthusiastic  devotion  to  the  holy  will  of  God; 
and  sometimes  these  various  types  of  love  are  blended, 
in  any  and  all  proportions.  Perhaps  love  to  God 
has  oftenest  been  regarded  mainly  as  a  matter  of 
inward  life,  a  feeling  and  sentiment  of  the  soul — 
for  is  not  love  naturally  a  function  of  the  hidden  man 
of  the  heart .?  This  accords  with  the  spirit  of  Jesus, 
if  only  it  be  taken  as  a  part  and  not  as  the  whole. 
If  we  look  to  Jesus  himself  for  illustration  of  love  to 
God,  we  learn  at  once  that  it  is  far  from  being  en- 
tirely an  inward  grace.  It  is  also  an  active  and  out- 
going affection.  Love  delights  not  only  in  God,  but 
in  all  that  God  delights  in.  It  takes  hold  not  only 
upon  his  beauty,  but  upon  his  will.  To  love  God  is 
to  love  what  God  loves,  and  so  to  love  it  as  to  be  it 
and  do  it.  This  is  how  Jesus  loved  him — not  emo- 
tionally alone,  or  meditatively,  or  approvingly,  or 
rapturously,  though  he  must  have  loved  in  all  these 
ways,  but  with  eager  consecration  of  himself  to  God*s 
uses.  "Lo,  I  come,  to  do  thy  will,  O  God,"  is  the 
true  utterance  of  love.  Love  to  God  makes  a  worker 
with  God :   Jesus  is  witness.     Yet  withal  it  has  those 


THE  TWOFOLD  LAW  OF  LOVE  125 

other  qualities:  it  bears  in  its  bosom  the  inward  glad- 
ness, peace  and  rest,  the  blessedness,  aspiration  and 
hope,  the  rapturous  delight,  the  incomparable  satis- 
faction and  the  insatiable  longing  for  more,  that  cor- 
respond to  the  infinite  perfection  of  its  object.  Love 
is  at  once  a  practical  force  and  a  mystical  and  deli- 
cious secret,  and  is  not  less  the  one  for  being  the 
other.  But  in  the  summons  of  Jesus,  if  we  may 
judge  from  his  own  example,  the  main  idea  is  that 
love  shall  enlist  the  soul  with  God  in  all  divine 
endeavor. 

When  Jesus  was  inquired  of  about  the  first  com- 
mandment, he  was  not  satisfied  with  specifying  that, 
but  brought  out  from  the  ancient  treasury  another 
command  to  set  beside  it.  Having  quoted  the  first 
command,  he  added,  "A  second  is  like  it:  Thou  shalt 
love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  By  the  side  of  love 
to  God  he  placed  love  to  men. 

This  law  of  neighbor-love  was  often  interpreted  by 
Jews,  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  light  of  ancient  tribal 
prejudice,  and  perverted  into  permission  to  hate  any 
one  who  could  not  strictly  be  called  a  neighbor.  The 
law  as  it  stands  in  Leviticus  does  not  authorize  such 
hatred,  and  yet  it  is  not  of  universal  scope.  It  is  in 
connection  with  the  mention  of  "the  children  of  thy 
people''  that  the  Israelite  is  bidden  love  his  neighbor 
as  himself:  that  is  to  say,  the  neighbor  that  is  con- 
templated is  the  fellow-Israelite.  The  same  principle 
appears  when,  in  the  same  connection,  "the  stranger 
that  is  with  thee"  is  mentioned,  and  it  is  added, 


126  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

"Thou  shalt  love  him  as  thyself."  The  old  method 
of  life  still  had  its  influence,  and  it  was  considered 
that  the  alien  became  entitled  to  the  neighbor-love 
through  adoption  into  the  tribe,  but  not  other- 
wise. As  long  as  tribal  feehng  survived  in  this  man- 
ner, "Thou  shalt  hate  thine  enemy''  was  only  a 
natural  corollary  of  this  command.  But  Jesus  was 
untouched  by  any  such  inherited  barbarity,  and 
meant  the  law  just  as  he  quoted  it,  as  a  law  of  love. 
And  we  should  note  that  here  again,  as  in  citing  the 
f  rst  command,  he  brought  over  an  old  national 
or  communal  command  to  individual  application. 
Without  withdrawing  it  from  its  broader  range,  he 
brought  it  home  to  each  man  as  a  law  of  personal 
Hfe. 

In  trying  to  understand  the  neighbor-love,  we  must 
remember  that  in  this  second  command  a  third  form 
of  love  is  recognized,  besides  love  to  God  and  to  the 
neighbor.  In  the  word,  "Thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself,"  self-love  is  assumed  as  a  fact  and 
taken  as  the  basis  for  comparison.  It  is  assumed  as 
a  matter  of  fact  that  a  man  loves  himself,  and  always 
will.  This  assumption  needs  no  defence.  Self-love, 
or  the  self-regarding  impulse,  is  simply  the  normal 
action  of  Hfe:  life  instinctively  asserts  and  protects 
itself,  and  provides  for  its  own  wants.  Our  own  in- 
terests are  attended  to  through  a  natural  necessity. 
We  should  note  that  Jesus  puts  no  condemnation  up- 
on this  self-regard,  so  necessary  and  inevitable.  He 
accepts  it  as  a  primary  fact  of  Hfe  that  a  man  will 
put  upon  himself  a  high  estimate  and  affection.     In 


THE  TWOFOLD   LAW  OF  LOVE  127 

thus  recognizing  self-love  Jesus  does  not  stop  to  point 
out  the  dangers  that  attend  it,  or  condemn  the  selfish- 
ness into  which  it  may  so  easily  degenerate,  but  sim- 
ply uses  it  for  comparison  and  leaves  it  where  he 
found  it.  He  has  done  more  than  any  one  else  to 
put  self-love  in  its  right  place  and  keep  it  there,  and 
his  use  of  this  very  law  has  been  one  chief  means  to 
this  end.  The  point  now  to  be  noticed  is  that  here 
stands  self-love,  an  ineradicable  and  worthy  element 
in  our  life,  and  that  Jesus  uses  it  for  his  purpose. 
By  his  citation  of  the  law  he  guides  us  in  defining 
the  neighbor-love  that  he  requires  of  us,  by  comparing 
it  with  this  which  we  know  so  well. 

Therefore  we  have  to  inquire  into  the  quality  of 
self-love.  If  we  do  so  we  shall  find  that  the  self- 
love  which  this  law  contemplates  is  not  exactly 
identical  with  some  forms  of  self-regard  which  have 
become  common  in  the  world.  The  self-love  that  is 
sanctioned  by  Jesus  here  is  not  an  exaggerated  self- 
estimate,  or  a  meditative  self-appreciation,  or  an  in- 
ward rapture  of  self-admiration.  All  this  savors  of 
self-conceit.  That  kind  of  thing,  well  known  though 
it  is,  is  a  late  development  of  human  folly,  and  should 
not  be  confounded  with  the  primary  affections  of  the 
soul.  The  genuine  and  original  self-love  is  the  in- 
stinct that  looks  out  for  one's  self.  It  looks  out,  liter- 
ally: it  is  an  active  and  forth-reaching  impulse,  lay- 
ing the  world  under  tribute  for  its  object.  It  regards 
self  as  important  enough  to  make  other  things  serve 
it,  and  therefore  it  does  things  for  selPs  sake.  It  takes 
care  for  one's  own  interest,  and  provides  for  one's 


128  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

own  necessities.  It  denies  self,  if  necessary,  for  the 
sake  of  some  dearer  interest  of  self.  Of  course  this 
may  easily  pass  over  into  folly  and  sin,  but  in  its 
place  it  is  a  perfectly  justifiable  thing.  There  is 
no  life  without  it. 

From  this  we  infer,  as  Jesus  bids,  the  quality  of 
neighbor-love.  **Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself"  means,  *'Thou  shalt  treat  thy  neighbor  on 
the  same  principle  as  thyself.  Him,  too,  consider 
important  enough  to  be  served  by  thy  endeavors. 
As  self-love  goes  out  in  works  of  self-assistance,  let 
thy  regard  for  the  neighbor  go  out  in  works  of  service. 
Instinctively  consider  his  interests  as  thou  consider- 
est  thine  own,  and  do  him  good  as  thou  doest  good 
to  thyself."  So  the  nature  of  self-love  stamps  the 
law  of  neighbor-love  as  nothing  if  not  practical.  It 
means  work.  It  cannot  be  obeyed  by  theories  of  re- 
form, or  by  meditation  upon  social  duty,  or  by  a  sense 
of  the  neighbor's  value,  or  the  contemplation  of  his 
miseries,  or  the  devoutest  wishes  for  his  welfare. 
Not  so  do  we  love  ourselves:  for  ourselves  we  act. 
The  neighbor-love  is  an  outgoing  affection,  going 
out  to  work.  It  bears  the  other's  burden,  as  one 
bears  his  own. 

Yet  the  love  is  not  for  the  burden,  or  for  the  virtue 
of  bearing  it,  but  for  the  neighbor.  The  interest  is 
in  the  man.  The  difference  is  that  self-love  does  not 
go  outside  of  self  to  find  the  object  of  its  affection  and 
endeavors,  but  neighbor-love  does.  Hence  it  is  a 
richer  affection  than  self-love  can  ever  become.  Self- 
love  may  easily  pass  into  selfishness,  but  neighbor- 


THE  TWOFOLD   LAW  OF  LOVE  129 

love  tends  the  other  way.  Self-love  may  easily 
narrow  the  self,  but  neighbor-love  broadens  it, 
or  rather  transfigures  it.  The  principle  of  this  law 
is  the  golden  bond  of  society.  When  do  men  live 
together  normally,  and  attain  to  the  full  blessedness 
of  a  common  life  ?  It  is  when  each  considers  the 
other  in  the  same  spirit  with  himself,  and  gathers  the 
other  into  such  privileges  of  the  self  as  may  legiti- 
mately be  shared.  The  highest  that  we  know  of 
social  ethics  is  built  upon  this  foundation. 

Jesus'  own  illustration  of  love  to  the  neighbor, 
given  to  illuminate  this  very  law,  is  as  familiar  as 
anything  in  the  Bible,  though  the  full  use  of  it  in  real 
life  waits  for  a  better  Christianity.  The  parable  of 
the  Good  Samaritan,  called  out  by  the  question 
"Who  is  my  neighbor .?"  does  not  contain  the  words 
"as  thyself,"  but  none  the  less  does  it  illustrate  the 
law.  The  parable  shows  that  the  neighbor  to  be 
loved  is  the  needy  one,  whether  acquaintance  or 
stranger,  countryman  or  alien,  friend  or  foe.  If  he 
needs  help  and  one  can  help  him,  he  is  the  one  whom 
this  law  of  love  intends.  But  Jesus  quietly  changes 
the  emphasis,  and  so  revolutionizes  the  law.  The 
parable  not  only  answers  the  question  "Who  is  my 
neighbor.?''  but  raises  the  question  "How  can  I  be 
neighbor  to  another  man.?"  "Who  then,  thinkest 
thou,  proved  neighbor  to  him  who  fell  among  the 
robbers  .?"  The  one  who  fulfils  the  meaning  of  the 
word  neighbor  is  not  the  man  who  lies  bleeding  by 
the  roadside,  but  the  man  who  comes  along  and  has 
compassion  upon  him  and  helps  him  to  live.     The 


130  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

neighbor-love  is  that  which  forbids  a  man  to  pass  by 
on  the  other  side  ignoring  another's  need,  but  impels 
him  to  take  notice,  search  out  what  can  be  done, 
and  give  himself  to  doing  it.  The  implied  counsel 
is,  "You  would  help  yourself  out  of  trouble  if  you 
could:  now  help  your  neighbor  out  as  you  would 
yourself,  and  so  be  a  neighbor."  Of  course  neighbor- 
love  will  not  always  be  occupied  with  bodily  relief, 
as  in  the  parable.  Bodily  reHef  is  only  a  sample 
method  of  doing  good.  The  problem  that  confronts 
neighbor-love  to-day  is  infinitely  more  complex  than 
the  problem  of  the  good  Samaritan.  But  the  good 
Samaritan's  impulse  is  fundamental  to  it  all,  the  im- 
pulse not  to  pass  by  on  the  other  side.  All  sorts 
of  relief  and  deliverance  are  thus  proposed  to  love. 
The  impulse  to  clear  the  road  of  robbers  and  pre- 
vent the  same  from  happening  again  falls  under  the 
same  category  as  the  rescue  of  the  perishing  by  the 
roadside.  Not  to  pass  by  on  the  other  side!  what  a 
far-reaching  rule  of  conduct  this  is  we  see  at  a  glance, 
and  yet  we  do  not  really  know  until  we  have  judged 
ourselves  by  it.  Jesus  would  establish  this  rule  of 
conduct  wherever  men  live  together.  This  is  the 
Christian  ideal,  "  Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens,  and 
so  fulfil  the  law  of  Christ,"  and  this  is  the  living  heart 
of  Jesus'  teaching  in  social  ethics. 

After  these  glimpses  of  love  to  God  and  the  neigh- 
bor we  are  ready  to  see  what  Jesus  meant  when  he 
said  that  the  second  commandment  is  "like  unto" 
the  first.     We  must  not  fail  to  note  that  although  the 


THE  TWOFOLD   LAW   OF  LOVE  131 

two  commands  are  both  found  in  the  ancient  law, 
they  do  not  stand  together  there,  and  there  is  no 
indication  that  they  were  ever  contemplated  side  by 
side.  The  idea  of  setting  them  in  company  is  Jesus' 
own.  The  first  was  well  known  as  the  first  and 
greatest,  but  it  was  he  who  selected  the  second  as 
worthy  to  stand  next  to  it,  and  he  alone  who  said  that 
the  two  were  alike.  We  can  see  that  they  are  alike 
in  at  least  three  respects. 

One  point  of  likeness  lies  in  the  breadth  of  the  two 
commands.  Each  deals  with  one  of  the  great  pri- 
mary human  relations,  and  covers  one  of  the  two  great 
fields  of  life.  One  touches  upon  all  that  we  have  to 
do  with  God,  and  the  other  with  all  that  we  have  to 
do  with  men.  Thus  they  are  alike  in  vastness,  in 
breadth  of  range,  in  fundamental  relation  to  all 
thought  and  conduct,  all  morals  and  religion.  To- 
gether they  sweep  the  entire  field  of  the  religious  and 
ethical  relations. 

Another  point  of  likeness  is  that  they  are  both  com- 
mands to  love.  They  not  only  cover  the  two  great 
fields  of  life,  but  cover  them  with  one  and  the  same 
motive.  They  bear  testimony  that  the  affection  that 
is  appointed  to  rule  in  our  relation  to  all  that  is  above 
us  is  appointed  to  rule  also  in  our  relation  to  all  that 
is  about  us.  What  we  do  when  we  look  up,  we  must 
do  also  when  we  look  abroad:  toward  God  and  men 
we  must  bear  one  affection  and  live  in  one  spirit. 
Whether  we  look  upon  our  life  as  ethical  or  religious, 
one  motive  is  appointed  to  inspire  the  whole.  The 
Master  might  have  said  more  than  that  the  two  laws 


132  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

were  alike:  he  might  have  said  that  they  were  one. 
Together  they  bind  our  Hfe  into  the  noblest  of  unities, 
the  unity  of  an  unselfish  love. 

A  third  point  of  likeness  is  that  these  two  command- 
ments alike  are  utterances  of  the  eternal  goodness, 
offered  to  us  for  our  fellowship  and  imitation.  These 
laws  are  not  human  institutions.  Each  in  its  own 
way  is  grounded  in  the  goodness  of  God.  Love  is 
a  stream  that  has  its  fount  in  him.  If  we  love  God, 
it  is  because  he  is  so  good  and  worthy  as  to  claim  our 
love  and  draw  it  out.  When  we  know  him,  he  is 
lovable;  and  it  is  in  this  eternal  fitness  that  our  love 
to  him  is  based.  And  if  we  love  our  neighbor,  we 
love  in  fellowship  with  God*s  own  love  toward  him, 
and  in  filial  imitation  of  our  Father's  gracious  work. 
The  better  nature  by  virtue  of  which  we  love  our 
neighbor  with  a  godlike  affection  has  come  into  us 
from  the  eternal  goodness,  and  its  exercise  in  actual 
helpfulness  is  nothing  but  the  character  of  God  work- 
ing out  in  his  children. 

Into  how  close  a  fellowship  these  two  laws  bring 
ethics  and  religion,  it  is  needless  to  say  again.  One 
most  admirable  and  worthy  law  is  supreme  in  both 
fields.  The  relations  of  men  are  dignified  and  sancti- 
fied by  being  brought  into  closest  intimacy  with  the 
relation  of  men  to  God.  Jesus  placed  a  crown  upon 
humanity  by  setting  nothing  above  love  to  men  except 
love  to  God,  and  he  revealed  new  beauty  in  God  by 
showing  us  that  God  desires  men  to  be  loved  in  com- 
pany with  himself.  It  is  as  if  God  had  said  to  hu- 
manity, "I  cannot  be  rightly  loved,  save  as  thou  art 


THE  TWOFOLD  LAW  OF   LOVE  133 

loved  also."  We  are  reminded  of  the  marvellous 
testimony  of  the  King  in  the  great  judgment  scene, 
"Inasmuch  as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one  of  the  least 
of  these  my  brethren,  ye  have  done  it  unto  me/' 

We  have  not  heard  the  whole  of  Jesus'  teaching 
about  love  to  men  until  we  have  listened  to  what  he 
says  of  love  to  enemies.  Here  he  sets  forth  what  any 
reader  would  call  the  extreme  application  of  the  law, 
and  here  he  gives  the  supreme  illustration  of  the  great- 
ness of  love,  and  of  its  divine  kinship.  At  the  cost 
of  a  little  repetition  this  teaching  must  be  presented 
here,  because  the  portrayal  of  the  Christian  ideal  of 
human  relations  would  be  incomplete  without  it. 

"Love  your  enemies,"  says  Jesus.  It  is  well  to 
note  that  in  giving  and  expounding  this  command 
he  throws  three  lights  upon  love  to  enemies.  First, 
he  exhibits  and  enjoins  what  all  would  feel  to  be  the 
extreme  and  most  exacting  form  of  love.  Taking  the 
perverse  but  natural  license  to  hatred,  he  simply  turns 
it  about:  "Ye  have  heard  that  it  was  said.  Thou  shalt 
love  they  neighbor  and  hate  thine  enemy;  but  I  say 
unto  you.  Love  your  enemies."  This  means:  Let 
hatred  perish,  even  in  its  most  congenial  home,  and 
love  take  possession  of  its  stronghold;  let  love  sweep 
the  whole  field,  for  the  perverse  human  affection  sub- 
stituting the  divine.  Here  love  demands  its  utmost. 
Next,  he  exhibits  love  for  enemies  in  comparison  with 
love  for  friends,  and  reminds  us  how  morally  superior 
it  is.  In  loving  those  who  love  us  there  is  no  special 
virtue,  for  it  is  a  natural  thing.     Sinners  do  that,  and 


134  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

for  that  there  is  no  reward.  But  love  for  enemies 
is  a  higher  kind  of  love,  which  nature  does  not  pro- 
duce. This  has  moral  value.  For,  thirdly,  love  to 
enemies  is  most  especially  the  imitation  and  repro- 
duction of  the  character  of  God.  God  loves  those 
who  hate  him,  and  deals  kindly  with  them,  giving 
them  sun  and  rain  as  he  does  his  friends;  and  if  we 
love  our  enemies  and  do  them  good  we  shall  be  true 
sons  to  him,  bearing  the  likeness  of  his  marvellous 
grace. 

Here  is  high  doctrine  indeed,  and  not  even  yet  have 
the  rank  and  file  of  Christians  accepted  it  as  true  for 
real  life.  They  have  rested  too  much  in  the  con- 
ception of  mutual  love,  and  held  that  to  be  the  high- 
est. But  not  only  does  the  Master  here  say  that 
brotherly  love,  or  the  mutual  love  of  the  like-minded, 
is  not  the  highest  love,  but  love  of  enemies  ranks  far 
higher:  he  assumes  by  the  tone  of  his  speech  that  as 
a  matter  of  course  we  all  see  it  in  that  light.  Evi- 
dently he  thinks  of  it  as  a  matter  of  common  knowledge 
and  universal  conviction.  No  one  can  question  it, 
he  implies.  Here,  it  is  interesting  to  note,  the  Synop- 
tics stand  in  contrast  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the 
Epistle  of  John.  In  the  Johannine  sources  we  read 
that  the  best  proof  of  discipleship  is  that  we  love  the 
brethren;  that  "greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this, 
that  a  man  lay  down  his  Hfe  for  his  friends";  and  that 
all  men  are  to  recognize  Christ's  disciples  by  the  love 
that  they  have  for  one  another.  This  promise  to 
mutual  love  has  indeed  been  fulfilled  in  great  meas- 
ure, for  the  mutual  love  of  Christians  has  often  stood 


THE  TWOFOLD   LAW   OF  LOVE  135 

to  the  world  as  evidence  of  their  discipleship.  And 
yet  the  love  of  Jesus  himself  was  not  of  that  kind. 
He  loved  his  enemies,  and  died  for  the  good  of  those 
who  had  no  love  for  him;  and  discipleship  to" such  a 
Master  cannot  receive  such  evidence  from  mutual 
love  as  it  can  from  love  to  enemies  and  help  to  those 
who  hate.  The  cross  has  always  been  the  object- 
lesson  of  such  love  as  this,  and  Jesus  himself  is  the 
supreme  illustration  of  what  in  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount  he  enjoins  upon  others.  Jesus  upon  the 
cross  is  the  expression  of  the  Christian  ideal  of  love, 
as  all  Christian  ages  have  knovni.  Here  he  preaches 
the  same  doctrine  that  his  cross  proclaims,  when  he 
emphatically  denies  that  the  love  of  congenial  spirits 
is  the  highest  kind  of  love  and  appeals  to  common 
sense  in  support  of  the  denial.  Truly  does  he  affirm 
that  the  highest  love  is  love  in  response  to  hatred, 
with  prayer  in  answer  to  persecution,  and  blessing 
in  reply  to  cursing. 

Since  love  to  enemies  occupies  so  prominent  a  place 
in  the  ideal  of  Jesus,  it  is  important  that  we  find  out 
exactly  what  it  is,  according  to  his  intention.  About 
this  there  is  no  real  mystery,  and  yet  there  has  been 
abundant  perplexity  and  misunderstanding.  Some 
of  the  perplexities  it  ought  to  be  easy  to  remove  by 
simply  recognizing  that  the  Master  did  speak  clearly 
and  can  be  understood.  If  he  had  a  clear  meaning, 
some  contradictions  are  ruled  out.  Love  to  enemies 
is  not  what  we  call  brotherly  love.  It  is  not  hking. 
It  is  not  approval.  It  is  not  delight  in  the  congen- 
ial.    It  will  not  make  us  feel  toward  enemies  as  we 


136  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

feel  toward  friends.  Many  of  the  perplexities  have 
sprung  from  the  assuming  of  some  such  misdefinitionT 
What  is  it,  then  ?  At  heart,  love  to  enemies  is  eager 
desire  to  do  them  good.  Of  course  it  includes  a 
sense  of  their  value,  and  a  gracious  and  forgiving  will. 
These  are  attendant  elements;  but  love  to  enemies 
itself  is  the  godlike  outgoing  of  the  helpful  heart — 
or  the  helpful  outgoing  of  the  godHke  heart.  It  is  the 
impulse  to  bless  those  who  curse,  and  to  save  those 
whom  we  might  easily  hate  and  leave  to  perish. 
Thus  it  is  a  saving  or  redemptive  love,  an  impulse 
to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  is  lost;  or,  in  terms 
that  are  entirely  untechnical,  it  is  the  unconquerable 
desire  to  go  and  make  the  enemy  a  better  man,  or  in 
any  way  to  do  him  good.  It  is  the  motive  of  the 
Good  Samaritan  spiritualized,  if  there  is  need  of 
spiritualizing  it.  Let  the  wounded  man  by  the  road- 
side be  the  personal  enemy,  or,  what  may  be  quite  as 
hard  to  deal  with,  the  enemy  of  all  that  one  holds  dear 
and  sacred.  Let  him  be  the  victim  of  spiritual  rob- 
bers, overpowered  by  sin,  robbed  of  his  better  nature, 
with  the  likeness  of  God  almost  beaten  out  of  him. 
Even  with  all  this  let  him  be  the  personal  enemy  too. 
Then  the  love  that  Jesus  urges  cannot  leave  him 
where  he  is,  but  runs  to  him  and  labors  to  restore  him 
to  himself  and  to  all  welfare.  Plainly  this  love  is 
higher  than  love  to  the  loving  brethren,  beautiful 
though  that  is  and  never  to  be  disparaged.  It  is  in 
this,  not  in  that,  that  we  can  be  sons  to  the  heavenly 
Father,  since  he,  as  Paul  has  said,  "commendeth  his 
own  love  toward  us  in  that  while  we  were  yet  sin- 


THE  TWOFOLD  LAW  OF  LOVE  137 

ners  Christ  died  for  us."  For  men  to  be  perfect  as 
their  Father  is  perfect  is  to  be  perfect  in  helpful  and 
redemptive  love  like  this.  Perfection  in  any  other 
love  would  be  perfection,  but  in  a  lov^er  grade. 

Jesus  himself  as  the  example  of  such  love  is  familiar 
to  us.  No  more  characteristic  word  is  recorded  as 
falling  from  his  lips  than  the  prayer  on  the  cross  for 
his  enemies  and  murderers,  "Father,  forgive  them, 
for  they  know  not  what  they  do."  Neither  is  there 
any  word  recorded  that  reveals  him  more  clearly  as 
the  Son  of  God.  Son  is  like  Father,  and  here  is  the 
Son's  whole-souled  utterance  of  the  Father's  redemp- 
tive love.  In  this  redemptive  love  he  followed  life 
to  its  dreadful  end,  being  so  true  a  lover  of  men 
that  his  heart  was  never  turned  away  from  them  by 
any  enmity  or  crime  of  theirs.  Herein  he  was  true 
Son  to  God,  whose  mercy  endureth  forever.  Gazing 
upon  this  in  Jesus  we  see  what  God  is,  and  what  man 
ought  to  be — what  man  will  be  also,  in  so  far  as  his 
sonship  approaches  the  ideal. 

One  more  illustration  of  the  rank  and  value  of  love 
to  men  Jesus  gives  in  his  great  parable  of  judgment. 
About  the  precise  intent  and  application  of  this  para- 
ble there  are  various  opinions,  but  nothing  could  be 
clearer  than  its  teaching  about  the  significance  of 
active,  helpful  love.  Jesus  is  called  the  King,  and  is 
portrayed  as  the  Judge  of  men,  who  assigns  them  to 
their  destiny  according  to  the  character  that  has  found 
expression  in  their  conduct  toward  their  fellow  men. 
In  this  assignment  of  destiny  active  love  is  the  deci- 


138  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

sive  test.  Those  who  have  performed  the  works  of 
love  and  helpfulness  with  asimple  and  uncalculating 
heart,  not  reckoning  up  their  merits  or  counting  upon 
reward,  are  accepted  by  the  King  and  called  into  the 
kingdom.  Such  service  rendered  even  to  the  lowliest 
the  King  acknowledges  as  rendered  to  him,  as  if  he 
himself  had  been  the  needy  one.  On  the  contrary, 
those  who  have  passed  by  on  the  other  side  and  left 
such  works  undone  are  rejected  and  sent  to  the  eternal 
cleansing  fire,  with  the  explanation  that  he  himself 
has  been  neglected  in  their  neglect.  Readers  have 
often  wondered  at  this  test,  and  stumbled  at  it  too. 
How  was  it  to  be  reconciled  with  justification  by 
faith,  well  known  to  be  the  only  way,  that  men  were 
thus  accepted  on  the  ground  of  helpful  works  ?  Yet 
certainly  Jesus  makes  no  mention  of  faith  as  the  test 
of  judgment,  but  only  of  gracious  deeds  wrought  in 
simplicity  of  heart.  But  this  is  not  strange.  It  ac- 
cords well  with  what  we  know  of  the  mind  of  Christ. 
Why  should  not  love  be  the  test  of  judgment,  when 
love  appears  in  the  Christian  gospel  as  the  supreme 
grace  alike  in  God  and  man  ^  "  By  their  fruits  ye 
shall  know  them,''  and  these  are  genuine  fruits  of  the 
truest  grace.  Jesus  would  approve  Paul's  estimate 
of  "faith,  hope,  love,  these  three,"  that  "the  greatest 
of  these  is  love,"  and  he  would  give  this  supreme  posi- 
tion to  no  love  but  that  which  reaches  out  to  help, 
like  the  love  of  God. 

Love  has  received  various  definitions  in  the  speech 
of  men,  corresponding  to  their  various  experiences 
with  it.     Sometimes  it  has  been  a  sentiment  of  the 


THE  TWOFOLD  LAW  OF  LOVE  139 

mind,  and  sometimes  a  selfish  human  desiring;  some- 
times an  ardent  approval,  or  a  hunger  for  possession, 
or  a  fellowship  of  the  heart;  sometimes  a  passion  of 
delight.  But  he  who  has  set  love  in  the  highest  place 
has  defined  it  at  the  highest,  showing  us  that  at  heart 
it  is  a  passion  for  doing  good,  a  self-forgetful  impulse 
of  redemption,  in  imitation  of  God  and  fellowship 
with  him.  This,  which  is  the  passion  of  God,  is  ap- 
pointed to  be  the  passion  of  his  children.  This  is  his 
ideal  of  human  character.  When  this  ideal  is  real- 
ized, the  finest  ethical  grace  becomes  the  very  life- 
breath  of  religion,  while  divine  religion  is  the  breath 
of  the  finest  ethical  life  in  man. 


VII 

THE  FILIAL  LIFE 

Following  on  with  Jesus'  presentation  of  his 
ideal,  we  now  behold  life  in  yet  another  light,  and 
look  upon  it  as  the  life  of  a  child  of  God.  He  as- 
sumes that  the  right  relation  of  man  to  God  is  that 
of  a  child  to  a  father,  and  that  it  is  both  the  duty  and 
the  privilege  of  a  man  to  live  with  God  as  a  genuine 
son.  I  say  that  he  assumes  this :  he  does  not  formally 
teach  it  or  put  it  into  separate  words,  but  weaves  it 
into  all  his  discourse  as  a  truth  that  he  takes  for 
granted.  We  are  accustomed  to  say,  in  our  modern 
manner  of  speech,  that  Jesus  taught  the  Father- 
hood of  God.  We  speak  of  it  as  if  it  were  a  doc- 
trine that  he  propounded.  But  that  is  our  artificial 
way  of  describing  a  natural  thing.  He  never  men- 
tions Fatherhood  or  puts  forth  any  doctrine  about 
it;  but  he  does  far  better  for  us.  He  proclaims  the 
Father.  He  assumes  that  God  is  Father,  tells  us 
what  he  is  like  in  that  character,  and  shows  us  what 
it  is  to  Hve  fihally  with  him.  The  natural  human 
sonship  to  God  that  he  assumes  is  always  real,  but 
needs  to  be  learned  for  what  it  is;  by  men  it  is  some- 
times ignored,  sometimes  flouted,  sometimes  wel- 
comed, never  perfectly  recognized  and  acted  upon; 

140 


THE  FILIAL  LIFE  141 

but  his  gracious  influence  helps  men  to  be  aware  of  it 
and  live  in  the  light  of  it.  All  his  teaching  here  is 
most  informal.  He  does  not  dogmatize  or  define,  but 
out  of  his  heart  he  tells  of  the  Father,  and  shows  what 
the  filial  life  must  be,  and  counsels  men  to  live  it  as 
simply  as  he  himself  does.  It  is  the  ideal  life  for  men, 
and  as  such  he  presents  it.  In  considering  this  testi- 
mony of  his  we  shall  have  to  use  again  some  sayings 
that  have  already  been  cited,  but  they  are  rich  enough 
to  be  repeated  in  this  new  connection. 

Primarily  of  course  the  teaching  about  the  filial 
Hfe  falls  under  the  head  of  religion.  It  is  the  relation 
to  God,  not  as  an  abstraction  but  as  a  living  and 
inspiring  fact,  that  is  in  view.  He  answers  the  great 
first  question.  What  is  God  to  us  and  what  are  we 
to  God  ?  and  by  his  answer  he  opens  to  men  life  in 
God's  family.  It  is  there  that  the  good  life  is  to  be 
lived,  high  and  pure  in  ethics,  fulfilling  the  moral 
ideal.  Here  he  makes  the  body  of  life  ethical  and 
the  soul  religious. 

Coming  now  to  his  words,  we  find  that  Jesus  ex- 
hibits the  inmost  character  of  the  fatherly  relation  in 
a  word  of  rare  beauty,  which  a  reader  may  easily 
pass  with  less  attention  than  it  deserves.  He  tells 
his  disciples  that  they  have  to  do  with  **the  Father 
who  is  in  secret,"  and  "the  Father  who  seeth  in 
secret."  Just  before  directing  their  attention  thus, 
he  has  been  talking  of  pubhcity  in  religion  and  how 
men  abuse  it.  The  hypocrites  have  eyes  only  for 
that  which  is  without:  the  beholders  of  their  religion 


142  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

are  the  men  about  them,  whom  they  wish  to  impress 
by  their  pious  works.  Thus  the  whole  transaction 
goes  on  in  the  wrong  field.  But  from  contemplation 
of  the  false  method  he  now  turns  to  the  true.  The 
Father  who  is  in  secret  and  sees  in  secret  is  the  one 
true  beholder  of  men's  religious  works,  and  to  him, 
not  to  an  observing  public,  they  must  have  regard. 
In  this  the  meaning  is  that  the  relation  between  the 
child  and  the  Father  lies  not  in  the  open  world,  like 
the  visible  life  of  men,  but  is  apart  from  sense-rela- 
tions and  independent  of  them.  God  is  the  invisible 
Father  of  the  invisible  soul.  God  whom  no  man  hath 
seen  or  can  see  stands  closely  near  to  man  whom 
no  one  hath  seen  or  can  see,  one  as  invisible  as  the 
other,  and  the  two  have  their  most  intimate  dealings 
in  the  dark.  It  is  in  the  invisible  realm  that  the 
relation  has  its  being:  the  soul  meets  its  God  and 
deals  with  him  in  its  own  dark  and  silent  depths. 
It  is  there,  we  know,  that  the  entire  outward  life  of 
man  is  grounded :  the  outer  life  is  born  of  the  inner, 
and  the  seen  is  the  offspring  of  the  unseen;  and 
Jesus  points  to  that  secret  realm  from  which  the 
open  life  proceeds  as  the  place  where  the  soul  has 
commerce  with  its  God.  This  corresponds  to  what 
we  have  learned  to  call  the  inwardness  of  religion. 
The  world  beholds  the  manifold  expressions  of  the 
religious  life,  and  may  fancy  itself  a  judge  of  the 
life  itself,  but  it  can  be  a  judge  only  in  part.  Only 
One  who  is  in  secret  and  sees  in  secret  can  dis- 
cern the  actual  life.  To  that  One  Jesus  now  gives 
his  favorite  name,   calling  him  **thy  Father  who  is 


THE   FILIAL  LIFE  143 

in  secret."  The  acts  and  feelings  of  a  Father  there 
proceed.  Man  meets  no  stranger  there,  but  his 
eternal  Kinsman.  There  he  dwells,  has  knowledge 
of  his  child,  puts  forth  his  affection,  passes  his  judg- 
ments, and  imparts  his  spiritual  gifts.  All  the  graces 
of  the  divine  family — conscience,  penitence,  faith, 
hope,  love,  aspiration,  consecration,  fidelity — have 
their  abode  in  that  secret  place  where  the  faithful 
Father  takes  full  cognizance.  Religion  dwells  with 
God  in  the  inner  darkness,  and  there  the  soul  finds 
a  sanctuary  inexpressibly  sacred  and  precious. 
Confidential  intercourse  is  there  where  no  ear  hears, 
and  there,  alone  with  the  Father,  the  child's  life  is 
nourished.  Truly  the  announcement  of  the  secret 
Fatherhood  is  a  veritable  sursum  corda  to  the  children 
of  God. 

What  kind  of  Father  God  is  Jesus  tells  in  words 
that  are  expounded  by  the  common  experience  of  life. 
A  most  gracious  interpreting  light  he  throws  upon 
unseen  realities  from  those  that  we  know  well.  He 
bids  us  form  our  idea  of  the  divine  Fatherhood  from 
the  best  that  we  know  of  human  parents.  These, 
although  they  are  "evil,"  know  how  to  give  good 
gifts  to  their  children,  and  have  the  steadfast  will 
to  do  it.  They  will  not  give  their  children  a  stone 
for  bread,  or  a  serpent  for  a  fish,  when  food  is  what 
they  ask  for.  This  understanding  of  their  children's 
needs,  this  unfailing  trustworthiness,  this  faithful, 
brooding  care,  says  Jesus,  belongs  to  human  parent- 
hood, imperfect  though  the  parents  are:  understand 
that  it  belongs  also  to  the  divine,  and  in  far  surpassing 


144  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS  ' 

degree.  "How  much  more  will  your  Father  who  is 
in  heaven  give  good  things  to  them  that  ask  him!'' 
Thus  human  parenthood,  notwithstanding  all  its 
faults,  is  presented  as  a  true  though  imperfect  revela- 
tion of  the  divine.  From  the  best  that  we  know  in 
man  he  bids  us  argue  up  to  what  is  actual  in  God, 
with  the  immeasurable  "how  much  more"  to  con- 
firm our  confidence  and  justify  our  hopes.  And  the 
nature  of  this  comparison  enables  us  to  read  one  de- 
lightful word  between  the  lines  by  the  full  authority 
of  the  Master.  It  is  impossible  to  confine  the  com- 
parison, on  the  human  side,  to  the  father's  part. 
It  is  delightful  to  think,  as  we  must,  that  all  the 
warmth  and  tenderness  of  a  mother's  love  is  gathered 
in  with  all  the  strength  and  fidelity  of  a  father's,  for 
illustration  of  the  heart  of  a  heavenly  Father  toward 
his  children.  It  is  with  such  a  Father,  generous, 
kind,  and  faithful  after  the  human  manner  but  far 
beyond  it,  that  Jesus  bids  us  live. 

Another  practical  view  of  the  Father  and  his  at- 
titude is  given  us  in  a  saying  the  eflPect  of  which 
may  easily  be  overlooked.  Jesus  exhibits  God  as 
a  Father  who  is  strict  with  his  children,  holding  them 
to  the  principles  of  his  family.  After  the  record  of 
the  Lord's  Prayer  there  is  added  a  single  comment 
by  way  of  exposition  and  enforcement.  It  is  only  a 
single  one,  but  probably  it  is  a  comment  on  the  point 
in  the  prayer  on  which  a  suggestion  was  needed 
most.  The  disciples  were  bidden  pray,  "Forgive 
us  our  debts,  as  we  forgive  our  debtors."  The  prayer 
for  pardon  is  necessary,  but  what  is  the  use  of  that 


THE   FILIAL  LIFE  145 

hard  condition  ?  for  we  are  required  to  tell  God  that 
we  ourselves  are  forgiving  those  who  need  our  forgive- 
ness. To  human  nature  forgiving  is  not  the  easy 
thing  that  we  may  wish  it  were,  and  many  souls  have 
wondered  at  this  addition  to  the  prayer.  But  in  the 
filial  life  with  God  the  forgiving  spirit  is  an  essential 
grace.  The  meaning  of  the  condition  is  unfolded  in 
the  single  comment  that  follows:  **If  ye  forgive  men 
their  trespasses,  your  heavenly  Father  will  forgive 
you;  but  if  ye  forgive  not,  neither  will  your  heavenly 
Father  forgive  you."  A  hard  saying  this  has  often 
seemed  to  be,  and  it  is  indeed  a  searching  word,  as 
every  Christian  knows.  But  it  is  uttered  by  the 
Father's  holy  faithfulness,  and  to  his  children  it  is  a 
most  healthful  word.  The  children  know  that  their 
Father  "delighteth  to  pardon,"  and  feel  themselves 
entirely  free  to  invoke  his  forgiving  grace.  To  this 
Jesus  encourages  them  by  the  prayer  that  he  teaches 
them,  but  he  reminds  them  that  the  request  implies 
an  obligation.  If  they  ask  the  benefit  of  forgiveness 
for  themselves,  they  must  do  to  others  what  they  wish 
God  to  do  to  them;  and  they  must  know  that  God  will 
not  forget  this  necessity.  Forgiving,  they  will  be 
forgiven  by  him,  but  unforgiving,  they  must  remain 
unforgiven.  It  is  a  startling  word,  yet  not  a  surpris- 
ing one.  The  Father  is  only  holding  the  children  to 
the  spirit  of  the  family.  God's  house  is  a  house  of 
grace.  Forgiveness  is  a  favorite  act  in  the  family, 
dear  alike  to  the  forgiver  and  the  forgiven;  but  if 
they  will  not  grant  forgiveness,  how  can  they  hope 
to  receive  it  in  this  family  of  pardon  ?    The  Father 


146  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

is  insistent,  exactly  as  he  ought  to  be,  and  he  is  doing 
his  children  a  most  faithful  service  when  he  thus  re- 
quires them  to  live  in  the  atmosphere  of  their  spirit- 
ual home.  There  could  not  be  a  better  illustration 
of  a  true  and  worthy  paternal  strictness.  Jesus  thus 
exhibits  God  as  no  soft  and  easy-going  Father,  in- 
different to  the  claims  of  his  own  character,  letting 
his  children  go  their  careless  way,  but  as  the  firm 
and  steadfast  administrator  of  a  holy  household, 
where  his  own  spirit  is  the  law. 

But  at  the  same  time,  while  he  thus  portrays  the 
strictness,  Jesus  represents  God  as  a  Father  who  is 
appreciative  toward  his  children.  He  is  a  rewarder, 
a  recompenser,  never  unmindful  of  right  things  that 
his  children  do.  The  assurance  of  this  he  makes 
clear,  though  as  to  the  manner  he  has  often  been  mis- 
understood. **Thy  Father  who  seeth  in  secret  him- 
self will  reward  thee,'*  says  Jesus  thrice.  "Openly,'* 
late  manuscripts  have  added  in  each  of  the  three 
places,  absolutely  destroying  the  sense.  Repeaters 
of  the  tradition,  and  early  preachers,  may  not  have 
seen  how  the  Lord  could  possibly  mean  anything 
else  than  openly,  and  so  may  have  added  the  word 
in  their  discourses;  or  through  the  same  misap- 
prehension some  copyist  may  have  written  it  upon 
the  margin  of  his  manuscript  to  complete  the  sense, 
whence  it  crept  into  the  text.  Whoever  introduced 
it  was  acting  upon  the  ordinary  view  of  life,  for  the 
recognition  of  one's  merits  is  commonly  regarded  as 
a  thing  much  to  be  desired.  He  could  not  understand 
a  reward  that  was  not  open — that  would  scarcely  be 


THE   FILIAL   LIFE  147 

a  reward  at  all — and  surely  the  great  God  would  not 
grudge  his  children  the  joy  of  an  open  vindication. 
How  well  human  nature  knows  this  impulse  toward 
publicity!  The  hypocrites  were  like  the  rest  of  us 
in  that  they  craved  a  reward  that  showed,  and  how 
eagerly  they  posed  in  order  to  get  their  recognition! 
It  was  in  rebuking  this  very  thing  that  Jesus  uttered 
the  word  that  we  are  speaking  of.  "  But  thou,  when 
thou  doest  alms,  let  not  thy  left  hand  know  what 
thy  right  hand  doeth;  that  thine  alms  may  be  in 
secret;  and  thy  Father  who  seeth  in  secret  shall  re- 
ward thee."  Nothing  but  profound  misunderstand- 
ing could  add  "openly"  to  this.  The  reward  will  be 
where  the  whole  transaction  is,  in  secret.  There  is 
the  deed  to  which  the  reward  corresponds,  there  is 
the  Father  with  his  discerning  eye,  and  there,  in- 
visible as  God,  is  the  spirit  of  his  child,  to  which  the 
reward  is  coming.  Secret,  then,  the  reward  will  be. 
This  withdrawal  of  the  reward  from  the  public  gaze 
shows  us  plainly  enough  what  the  nature  of  it  must  be. 
As  it  cannot  be  public  approval  or  visible  promotion, 
so  it  is  not  in  any  sense  a  reward  of  merit  or  pay  for 
service  rendered.  The  reward  is  simply  the  appro- 
priate return  of  spiritual  blessing,  given  by  the  Father 
to  the  child  whose  inward  state  is  such  that  he  can 
receive  it.  As  the  Fatherhood  is  spiritual,  and  spir- 
itual the  value  of  the  work,  spiritual  is  the  reward. 
About  this  there  is  none  of  the  uncertainty  that  hangs 
about  public  recompense.  From  the  faithful  and 
appreciative  Father,  the  benediction  on  real  and 
simple-hearted  service  will  not  fail.     But  Jesus  does 


148;  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

not  promise  that  the  reward  in  secret  will  be  known 
by  any  one  but  him  who  receives  it,  save  as  fruits 
of  it  may  be  seen  in  character  and  in  fresh  works  of 
grace. 

A  more  worldly  doctrine  of  reward  than  this  has  of- 
ten been  attributed  to  Jesus,  and  one  that  resembles 
too  much  the  idea  that  he  condemns  in  the  hypocrites. 
He  has  been  understood  to  teach  that  every  right 
deed  would  be  matched  by  a  corresponding  recom- 
pense, given  because  it  was  deserved,  open  to  all  be- 
holders, and  bringing  honor  to  the  recipient,  to  be 
conferred  at  the  end  of  the  earthly  course.  For  this 
some  have  held  him  in  but  slight  honor,  supposing 
that  he  really  taught  it,  while  others,  too  well  satis- 
fied with  such  a  doctrine  of  reward,  have  missed  the 
point  of  his  most  spiritual  teaching. 

It  is  true  that  there  are  some  recorded  expressions 
in  the  Gospels  that  do  not  agree  with  the  doctrine  of 
the  reward  in  secret,  and  seem  to  promise  a  public 
reward  of  merit.  Probably  some  of  these,  like  the 
word  "openly,"  simply  embody  the  hearers'  natural 
misunderstanding  of  what  the  Master  said.  In  some 
of  them  he  is  misunderstood  by  modern  readers, 
through  the  importation  of  modern  ideas  to  the  inter- 
pretation. For  example,  to  those  who  are  reviled 
and  persecuted  for  his  sake,  Jesus  says,  "  Rejoice  and 
be  exceeding  glad,  for  great  is  your  reward  in  heaven." 
The  modern  reader  has  been  taught  to  define  heaven 
as  the  blessed  future  state,  and  so  he  understands 
that  the  bKss  of  that  state  is  here  promised  as  an 
open  reward  or  compensation  to  the  persecuted  for 


THE  FILIAL  LIFE  149 

all  their  sufferings.  But  by  heaven  here  Jesus  does 
not  mean  the  future  state.  **  Great  is  your  reward  in 
heaven"  means  "Great  is  your  reward  with  God"; 
and  the  reward  with  God  is  not  payment  for  some- 
thing done;  here  again  it  is  the  fit  return  of  spiritual 
blessing  from  the  Father.  Jesus  would  approve  the 
spirit  of  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  when  he  says  of 
God  that  "he  is  a  rewarder  of  them  that  diligently 
seek  him" — that  is  to  say,  they  find  him,  and  that  is 
what  he  gives  them  as  their  exceeding  great  reward. 
That  no  reward  in  the  ordinary  and  popular  sense 
can  be  earned  by  the  doing  of  duty,  Jesus  himself 
affirms  as  a  matter  of  course  in  the  parable  of  the 
Unprofitable  Servant:  "When  ye  have  done  all,  say, 
We  are  unprofitable  servants;  we  have  done  that 
which  was  our  duty  to  do."  His  characteristic  teach- 
ing is  that  no  reward  in  the  sense  of  payment  or  de- 
served return  can  be  coming  to  a  man  for  the  doings 
of  his  life.  But  all  the  more  open  therefore  is  the 
field  to  his  great  idea  that  out  of  the  Father's  full 
heart  flows  the  free  recompense  of  spiritual  blessing 
in  response  to  the  loyal  devotion  of  his  child.  There 
is  no  reason  why  we  should  be  puzzled  about  dis- 
tinguishing between  these  two  things.  In  the  human 
family  the  parents  do  not  pay  the  child  for  any  ser- 
vice or  loyalty  that  corresponds  to  his  sonship,  and 
no  one  supposes  that  they  return  to  him  a  reward  of 
merit.  Such  a  thing  would  be  out  of  all  keeping 
with  the  true  relation  of  parent  and  child.  Never- 
theless they  reward  him,  and  do  it  In  a  manner  whose 
richness  beggars  the  whole  Idea  of  payment,  and  the 


150  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

child  is  aware  of  the  meaning  and  value  of  the  reward. 
Even  so,  according  to  Jesus,  the  heavenly  Father  does. 

A  spiritual  Fatherhood,  then,  better  far  than  the 
best  that  humanity  knows,  in  which  the  Father  is 
strict  in  his  ethical  demands  and  yet  appreciative 
of  all  that  his  children  do  in  loyalty — such  is  the  re- 
lation between  God  and  men  that  Jesus  tells  us  of. 
It  is  implied  at  every  point  that  the  Fatherhood  is 
suffused  with  love,  while  it  glows  no  less  with  the 
strength  and  beauty  of  holiness.  This  is  the  realm 
of  divine  religion,  and  in  this  atmosphere  Jesus 
would  have  us  live  our  ethical  life.  Surely  there  is 
no  worthier  ideal  of  life  than  this.  And  now,  hav- 
ing had  the  Father  set  before  us,  we  may  turn  to  the 
other  aspect  of  the  relation  and  listen  to  Jesus  while 
he  speaks  of  the  children  of  God,  and  the  Hfe  that 
they  live  in  this  divine  atmosphere. 

That  the  life  of  the  children  with  God  is  a  life  of 
prayer  belongs  to  its  religious  character.  In  any 
living  relation  with  a  living  God,  prayer  is  a  matter  of 
course;  but  when  the  relation  is  a  filial  one,  prayer 
becomes  a  vital  and  tender  thing,  and  the  character 
of  prayer  becomes  a  fact  in  ethics.  Necessarily  the 
character  of  the  Father  gives  color  to  all  filial  pray- 
ing. Holding  up  the  contrast  to  the  praying  of  the 
hypocrites,  intended  for  the  ears  of  men,  and  with 
that  of  the  Gentiles,  framed  with  many  words  and 
useless  repetitions,  Jesus  says  to  his  friends,  "After 
this  manner  therefore  pray  ye,''  ye  children  of  God, 
to  whom  is  open  the  privilege  of  praying  to  a  Father. 


THE   FILIAL  LIFE  151 

Remember  to  pray  as  members  of  his  family,  as  true 
children  ought  and  may.  Pray  quietly,  the  world 
shut  out,  the  soul  alone  with  God.  Speak  to  him 
as  a  Father  who  is  acquainted  with  you:  remember 
that  he  knows  what  you  need  before  you  ask  him. 
Therefore  you  will  not  need  to  explain  everything 
in  order  that  he  may  understand  your  case,  neither 
do  you  need  repetitions  to  impress  him,  or  many 
words  to  influence  him.  Gentiles,  not  addressing 
God  as  Father  or  accounting  themselves  his  sons, 
may  suppose  it  necessary  to  beg  of  him  with  much 
iteration  and  volubility.  But  it  is  not  so  with  God*s 
children,  who  pray  to  a  Father  who  knows  them 
better  than  they  know  themselves. 

The  familiar  prayer  to  which  this  exhortation  was 
a  preface  was  not  meant  by  Jesus  for  a  liturgy  or  an 
exclusive  form.  In  a  life  of  spiritual  reality  there  can 
be  no  such  thing  as  an  exclusive  form  of  prayer. 
God,  who  has  the  heart  of  a  Father,  cannot  require 
or  expect  any  single  manner  of  praying,  and  upon 
men  who  pray  as  his  children  no  exclusive  form  can 
be  imposed.  Filial  praying  may  accept  forms,  but 
cannot  be  bound  by  them,  for  it  will  change  with  the 
changing  need;  and  the  natural  variety  is  exactly 
what  the  Father  wishes  to  hear.  The  address  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  "Our  Father,"  is  a  charter  of  liberty 
in  praying,  for  it  opens  the  way  to  naturalness,  and 
the  children's  freedom  is  sure  to  claim  its  rights. 
This  prayer  that  Jesus  taught  to  his  disciples  is  a 
fihal  prayer,  wonderfully  true  and  comprehensive 
in   its   expression   of  the  normal   desires   of  God's 


152  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

children.  It  is  a  prayer  of  the  children  rather  than 
of  a  child,  though  an  individual  may  offer  it.  If 
an  individual  does  offer  it,  he  offers  it  as  one  of  the 
family,  for  there  is  not  a  clause  in  it  that  does  not 
imply  the  existence  of  a  common  life  in  which  the 
individual  is  a  partaker.  It  is  plain  that  the  normal 
desires  of  the  divine  family  are  here.  First  comes 
the  plea  for  the  hallowing  of  the  Father's  name,  the 
coming  of  his  kingdom  and  the  doing  of  his  will 
by  men;  and  then  follow  requests  for  the  Father's 
provision,  the  Father's  forgiveness,  and  the  Father's 
protection  for  all  whom  the  prayer  represents.  De- 
votion to  the  Father  and  reliance  upon  him  are  the 
religious  elements  in  the  prayer,  and  the  ethical 
elements  are  the  spirit  of  forgiveness  and  the  desire 
to  be  delivered  from  sin.  If  **Thy  will  be  done" 
were  regarded  as  a  prayer  of  submission,  as  it  often 
is,  perhaps  the  prayer  might  breathe  a  minor  tone. 
But  it  is  a  prayer  of  aspiration,  and  of  consecra- 
tion too,  and  it  rings  in  the  major  key.  When  the 
children  pray  that  the  Father's  will  may  be  done 
and  his  kingdom  come,  they  pledge  themselves  to 
the  bringing  of  his  kingdom  and  the  doing  of  his  will. 
Not  only  does  the  prayer  breathe  filial  trust:  it  glows 
with  filial  loyalty. 

Jesus  proceeds  to  give  further  account  of  the  filial 
life,  and  in  so  doing  he  unfolds  the  meaning  of  trust 
and  loyalty,  the  principles  to  which  the  prayer  gives 
expression.  In  the  discourse  that  follows  they  are 
so  interwoven   that  it  is   impossible   to   treat  them 


THE  FILIAL  LIFE  153 

separately.  With  him,  it  would  appear,  there  is  no 
good  loyalty  without  childlike  trust,  and  no  genuine 
trust  that  does  not  work  itself  out  in  the  spirit  of 
loyalty.  It  may  be  that  we  think  of  trust  in  God  as  a 
religious  element  in  life,  and  loyalty  to  him  as  an 
ethical.  If  we  do,  then  we  shall  say  that  in  this 
teaching  ethics  and  religion  are  perfectly  interfused. 
This  closer  view  of  the  filial  life  is  introduced  by 
the  declaration  that  men  must  discriminate  and  make 
their  choice  between  the  earthly  and  the  heavenly, 
between  human  treasures  and  divine.  The  soul's 
treasure  must  be  laid  up  not  on  earth,  where  posses- 
sions quickly  perish  even  if  thieves  let  them  alone — 
not  here,  but  in  heaven,  where  all  is  abiding  and 
secure.  Treasure  committed  to  God  is  safe.  The 
man  whose  treasure  is  laid  up  in  heaven  is  not  the 
one  who  has  value  stored  in  the  future  as  in  a  bank, 
to  be  drawn  and  enjoyed  by  and  by — for  here  again 
"heaven''  is  not  the  future  life.  He  is  the  man 
who  has  made  abiding  choice  of  God  and  all  that 
pleases  him.  As  to  the  choice,  either  worldly  good 
or  this  divine  treasure  may  be  a  man's  dearest  own — 
either  of  them,  but  not  both.  Mammon,  which  is 
an  old  name  for  wealth,  stands  for  the  whole  of  this 
earthly  deposit,  which  includes  much  besides  mere 
money,  while  God  stands  for  the  whole  of  the  heav- 
enly choice.  To  God  and  Mammon  it  is  impossible 
to  be  equally  devoted:  one  will  certainly  outbalance 
the  other;  wherefore  between  the  two  there  must  be 
a  decisive  choice.  Not  that  wealth  and  godliness  are 
necessarily  incompatible,  but  the  two  dominant  loyal- 


154  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

ties  are.  To  God,  as  against  the  supremacy  of  the 
worldly  significance  of  life,  the  soul  must  take  the 
oath  of  allegiance  and  hold  it  fast. 

This  choice  of  the  higher  loyalty  may  seem  a  dan- 
gerous choice,  but  it  will  not  prove  to  be  danger- 
ous when  it  is  accompanied  by  the  higher  trust. 
Choose  the  heavenly,  says  Jesus,  and  have  no  fears 
about  the  earthly.  A  hard  saying,  replies  the  hearer; 
it  would  be  most  sweet  if  it  were  not  so  hard,  but  a 
hard  saying  it  is.  Have  no  anxiety  ^  What  is  to 
still  the  heart's  anxiety  in  the  midst  of  the  earthly 
necessities  that  cannot  be  escaped  I  Who  can  won- 
der if  the  question  rises  and  will  not  down  ?  But 
the  answer  of  Jesus  is  that  the  heavenly  Father  him- 
self is  to  still  the  heart's  anxiety.  In  making  the 
loyal  choice  one  trusts  himself  with  God,  and  goes 
out  of  his  own  keeping  into  the  Father's  hands;  and 
Jesus  testifies  that  it  is  not  only  right  to  be  there,  but 
safe  and  good.  The  wisdom  of  such  confidence  he 
justifies  by  illustrations  most  beautiful.  The  heav- 
enly Father  is  he  who  feeds  the  birds,  cares  for  the 
grass,  and  clothes  the  lilies  of  the  field  with  splendor. 
Men  are  far  more  precious  to  him  than  birds  or 
flowers,  and  when  he  beholds  them  responding  to 
him  with  trustful  loyalty,  he  will  not  disappoint  their 
confidence.  Gentiles,  not  having  discovered  the 
soul's  true  kinship,  may  naturally  devote  themselves 
to  the  earthly  good  with  all  their  might,  since  they 
have  their  own  way  to  make;  but  as  for  the  children, 
"Your  heavenly  Father  knoweth  that  ye  have  need 
of  all  these  things." 


THE   FILIAL  LIFE  155 

But  trust  and  loyalty  go  together.  It  is  not  to  an 
unethical  and  inactive  confidence  that  Jesus  gives 
this  benediction  and  promise.  A  condition  is  at- 
tached. The  filial  confidence  implies  the  filial  loy- 
alty. The  condition  is,  "  Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom 
of  God  and  his  righteousness."  A  true  child  of  God 
does  not  simply  lie  down  trustfully  upon  his  grace. 
With  the  first  choice  of  his  soul  he  adopts  God's 
moral  ideal  and  devotes  himself  to  the  answering  of 
his  own  prayer,  "Thy  kingdom  come." 

This  great  condition  has  been  sadly  misconceived. 
The  seeking  of  the  kingdom  of  God  has  often  been 
taken  to  be  seeking  entrance  to  heaven  hereafter, 
and  the  seeking  of  his  righteousness  to  be  seeking 
justification  in  his  sight  by  faith,  or  even  a  right- 
eousness that  he  may  give  through  imputation.  By 
such  defining  the  passage  has  been  very  largely 
confined  to  the  personal  range,  and  attention  has 
been  held  to  individual  destiny.  But  this  is  far  from 
the  thought  of  Jesus  in  these  words.  To  seek  the 
kingdom  of  God  is  to  devote  one's  self  to  the  endeavor 
to  estabHsh  the  kingdom  of  God  in  this  present  world; 
to  seek  his  righteousness  is  to  strive  to  possess  in  one's 
self  and  establish  in  the  world  the  right  character  and 
life  that  God  delights  in.  When  we  remember  what 
the  kingdom  of  God  is,  and  what  righteousness  is, 
we  perceive  that  the  seeking  of  these  implies  a  life  of 
consecration  to  the  highest  good  of  any  and  all  men, 
and  to  the  bettering  of  the  human  race.  The  work  is 
a  social  work,  and  for  one  who  adopts  it  it  is  a  life- 
long work.     All  the  relations  and  activities  of  Ufe  lie 


156  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

within  the  field  of  his  endeavor,  and  his  aim  is  to  help 
in  bringing  them  all,  or  any  of  them,  under  the  sway 
of  God's  kingdom  and  righteousness.  It  is  plain  at  a 
glance  that  this  is  work  of  loyalty  to  God,  for  it  is 
directed  to  the  hallowing  of  his  name,  the  coming  of 
his  kingdom,  and  the  doing  of  his  will.  But  it  is  no 
less  a  work  of  trust  in  God.  The  profoundest  con- 
fidence in  God  is  not  shown  in  lying  down  to  be  car- 
ried by  his  grace,  although  in  its  place  this  is  a  worthy 
form  of  confidence.  In  so  far  as  we  need  to  be  simple 
recipients,  this  is  a  right  form  of  trust.  But  the  pro- 
foundest confidence  in  God  is  exercised  when  one 
accepts  his  will  as  worthy  to  be  done  at  all  costs,  lives 
loyally  as  his  child,  and  labors  to  revolutionize  human 
society  in  the  spirit  of  his  kingdom.  One  who  takes 
his  life  in  his  hand  for  God's  sake  is  the  one  who  trusts 
him,  and  one  who  trusts  him  fully  will  gladly  take 
his  Hfe  in  his  hand  for  his  sake.  Loyalty  and  trust 
imply  each  other.  If  Christendom  takes  the  com- 
mand to  seek  first  the  kingdom  of  God  and  his 
righteousness  as  a  summons  to  seek  personal  welfare, 
it  sadly  misses  the  point  of  the  Master.  It  is  a  sum- 
mons to  take  part  in  the  divine  enterprise  of  making 
all  things  new. 

By  saying  "All  these  things  shall  be  added  unto 
you,"  Jesus  implies  that  the  loyal  soul  is  in  the  hands 
of  God  and  may  trust  him  with  all  its  needs.  But  he 
seems  also  to  mean  that  the  shortest  road  to  the  sup- 
plying of  all  human  necessities  is  the  coming  of  God's 
kingdom  and  the  establishment  of  his  righteousness 
as  the  law  of  the  common  life  of  men.     The  kingdom 


THE   FILIAL  LIFE  157 

IS  so  good  and  the  righteousness  Is  so  right  that  when 
they  come  in  the  common  needs  will  be  supplied. 
The  kingdom  means  that  the  necessity  of  each  is 
the  concern  of  all,  and  the  righteousness  implies  the 
same.  Human  society  will  never  be  either  happy 
or  righteous  until  the  kingdom  comes. 

The  loyalty  for  which  Jesus  calls  is  to  manifest 
itself  in  innumerable  ways.  The  spirit  of  the  Father 
is  to  be  lived  out  in  the  life  of  the  children.  "  Blessed 
are  the  peacemakers,  for  they  shall  be  called  the 
children  of  God."  "Love  your  enemies,  that  ye 
may  be  sons  of  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven."  "  Be 
merciful,  as  your  Father  is  merciful."  **Ye  are  the 
salt  of  the  earth,  ye  are  the  light  of  the  world."  The 
work  of  loyalty  is  suggested  more  than  it  is  described. 
Jesus  would  have  it  carried  far  beyond  the  expres- 
sions of  it  that  he  mentioned.  He  never  can  have 
supposed  that  the  counsels  that  fell  from  his  lips  told 
the  whole  duty  of  man,  and  still  less  can  we  suppose 
that  our  fragmentary  record  shows  it  all  to  us.  Not 
even  Jesus  could  possibly  unfold  the  whole  duty  of 
man  in  the  filial  life,  for  the  filial  loyalty  has  a  thou- 
sand forms,  and  finds  new  expression  in  every  new 
age  and  field  of  action.  It  means  just  as  much  in  the 
parts  of  our  Hfe  that  we  do  not  call  religious  as  in 
those  to  which  we  give  that  name.  The  kingdom  and 
righteousness  of  God  cover  everything.  Jesus  wishes 
to  raise  up  for  the  world  a  host  of  men  who  are  utterly 
loyal  to  their  heavenly  Father,  and  who  trust  him  so 
absolutely  as  to  be  sure  that  the  way  of  loyalty  is 
always  the  safe  and  blessed  road. 


158  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

Both  the  church  and  the  world  have  suffered  much 
from  reading  these  counsels  in  the  wrong  atmosphere. 
There  have  been  two  errors.  Now  and  then  some 
one  announces  that  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  de- 
scribes a  life  that  is  noble  in  ethics  but  not  conspicu- 
ously religious.  This  was  once  a  somewhat  common 
impression,  and  we  may  find  it  still,  in  some  who  think 
that  the  ethical  life  may  be  well  lived  by  itself,  with- 
out much  help  from  religion.  But  nothing  could  be 
farther  from  the  truth  than  the  finding  of  this  utter- 
ance non-religious.  The  filial  life  that  is  here  set 
forth  finds  its  motive  and  inspiration  in  the  vital 
relation  of  man  to  God,  and  in  nothing  less  than  a 
free  life  of  faith  and  love  toward  the  invisible  Father. 
But  the  opposite  error  has  been  far  more  hurtful, 
because  more  common.  Too  often  these  commands 
and  counsels  have  been  taken  as  technically  religious 
altogether,  and  read  in  the  light  of  an  individualistic 
piety.  They  have  been  accounted  to  be  counsels  of 
inward  religion,  belonging  in  the  same  region  with 
meditation  and  personal  penitence  and  the  aspirations 
of  the  individual  soul.  Some  even  say  that  religion 
is  all  between  God  and  the  soul,  and  does  not  directly 
go  any  farther:  of  the  fellow  man  and  society  it  takes 
only  indirect  cognizance.  How  plainly  social  these  re- 
quirements are,  how  sharply  they  apply  to  the  actual 
relations  of  life,  how  impossible  it  is  to  obey  them 
except  by  attention  to  the  way  men  live  together — 
these  things  are  thus  overlooked,  to  the  great  spirit- 
ual impoverishment  of  Christendom.  The  individ- 
ualizing of  Christianity  was  an  unavoidable  necessity 
in  its  time,  and  has  served  a  necessary  use  in  history; 


•THE  FILIAL  LIFE  159 

but  at  present  It  is  holding  larger  ideas  in  abeyance, 
and  is  postponing  the  victory  of  Christ  in  the  universal 
field.  The  time  has  come  v^hen  a  broader  under- 
standing is  an  absolute  duty. 

With  the  social  appHcation  thus  in  mind,  we  may 
be  surprised  at  one  fact.  Modern  Christians  say 
much  about  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  Brother- 
hood of  Man.  Some  are  inclined  to  erect  these  two 
as  the  pillars  at  the  front  of  the  Christian  temple. 
The  two  thoughts  are  natural  companions,  and  when 
Jesus  says  so  much  of  the  Father,  we  may  be  surprised 
that  human  brotherhood  is  so  little  upon  his  Hps. 
Of  "thy  brother"  he  sometimes  speaks,  but  not  in  a 
manner  to  show  that  he  habitually  thought  of  the 
relation  of  man  to  man  in  this  form.  Only  hints  in 
that  direction  appear.  Probably,  however,  it  was  best 
that  the  second  thought  should  be  left  to  grow  in  due 
time  out  of  the  first:  it  would  be  more  effective  so. 
So  far  from  discouraging  the  second  by  not  making 
it  prominent,  he  planted  the  seed  from  which  it  was 
sure  to  grow.  If  God  is  Father,  men  are  brothers, 
and  true  filial  life  toward  God  will  turn  out  to  be 
fraternal  life  toward  men.  Fraternity  is  the  Chris- 
tian ideal.  All  the  teaching  of  Jesus  naturally  works 
out  in  a  life  of  brotherhood.  Fellowship  with  the 
Father  promotes  it,  and  the  brotherly  life  in  turn 
will  enhance  the  preciousness  of  the  Father. 

We  have  been  looking  at  Jesus'  portrayal  of  the 
filial  life,  but,  clear  and  vivid  though  this  is,  it  still 
remains  true  that  his  greatest  contribution  to  our 


160  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

knowledge  of  the  filial  life  has  been  made  in  his  ex- 
ample. Greater  than  his  words  is  his  life,  for  in 
this  he  enables  us  to  see  what  it  is  for  a  man  to  live  as 
a  son  of  God.  When  we  look  at  what  we  know  of  the 
life  that  he  lived,  we  find  the  filial  spirit  expressed  in 
its  most  characteristic  forms,  nam^ely,  in  love  and 
loyalty  and  confidence.  We  see  Jesus  delighting  in 
his  Father,  loving  to  commune  with  him,  spending 
nights  in  prayer  and  days  in  service,  rejoicing  to 
make  him  known  to  men  as  he  is  and  commend  him 
to  their  confidence,  finding  his  own  joy  in  that  life 
of  spiritual  reality  which  holds  one  heart  to  heart 
with  God.  And,  what  goes  deeper  still,  we  see  how 
he  accepted  his  Father's  will  and  held  it  supreme; 
how  he  accepted  it  not  only  as  a  will  to  be  adored  or 
to  be  endured,  but  also  as  a  will  to  be  done  by  him 
and  accomplished  through  his  efforts.  Loyally  trus- 
ting God,  he  consecrated  and  committed  himself 
absolutely  to  the  work  that  his  Father  had  given  him 
to  do.  Accordingly  he  went  through  life  not  down- 
cast and  submissive,  as  we  sometimes  imagine  him, 
but  in  manly  and  courageous  fashion,  not  fearing  the 
face  of  flesh,  resolved  only  to  fulfil  his  mission  in  the 
world  of  men.  He  stands  before  us  as  the  perfect 
type  of  a  son's  warmth  of  spirit,  glow  of  affection,  and 
joy  in  fellowship,  and  of  a  filial  devotion  in  life  and 
death  that  is  not  mere  humility  but  the  co-operation 
of  a  loyal  heart.  Moreover,  we  see  him  living  not 
only  for  his  own  soul  and  his  Father,  but  for  the  world 
into  which  he  had  been  born.  He  lived  for  men. 
He  was  a  social  being,  one  of  his  race  and  people. 


THE   FILIAL  LIFE  161 

bearing  the  common  burdens.  He  was  the  prince 
of  helpers,  contributing  himself  daily  to  the  common 
good,  living  and  dying  to  bring  the  kingdom  of  God, 
laboring  to  bring  on  the  new  heavens  and  new  earth 
wherein  dwelleth  righteousness.  Theology  has  its 
metaphysical  doctrines  of  the  person  of  Christ  to 
account  for  the  sonship  of  Jesus  to  God;  but  doctrine, 
after  all,  is  only  the  explanation  of  fact,  and  no 
analysis  of  his  person  can  ever  afford  such  proof 
and  illustration  of  his  sonship  to  God  as  resides  in 
the  life  that  he  lived  and  the  death  that  he  died. 
In  everything  God  was  Father  and  he  was  Son;  and 
thus  he  has  given  us  living  evidence  of  what  it  would 
be  for  God  to  be  Father  to  all  men,  and  all  men  to  be 
sons  to  God.  This  is  the  ideal  for  the  world — that 
all  men  in  their  widely  varied  life  should  be  animated 
by  the  filial  spirit  that  made  Jesus  what  he  was  in  the 
filial  life  with  God. 

The  key  to  the  true  filial  life  is  found  in  unity 
of  character  between  Father  and  Son.  Such  a  life 
comes  not  from  a  sense  of  duty  or  from  deference  to 
commands,  but  springs  from  profound  oneness  of 
heart  with  God.  A  son  of  God  is  one  who  is  at  least 
on  the  way  to  become  perfect  with  the  Father's  per- 
fection. The  decisive  fact  is  that  he  is  Hke-minded 
with  the  Father.  In  Jesus  this  character-unity,  or 
moral  fellowship,  was  complete,  and  so  he  illustrates 
in  full  measure  the  normal  relation  of  man  to  God, 
and  the  normal  life  of  goodness.  The  Christlike  is 
the  truly  human.  Shall  we  say  that  his  full  fel- 
lowship with  the  Father  was  due  to  his  moral  pu- 


162  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

rity,  or  his  moral  purity  to  his  full  fellowship  with 
the  Father  ?  Concerning  him  we  need  not  labor  to 
solve  the  question;  but  concerning  ourselves  we  know 
that  we  shall  be  in  closer  fellowship  with  the  Father 
in  proportion  as  we  become  free  from  sin,  and  in 
turn  shall  become  more  free  from  sin  in  proportion 
as  we  live  in  deep  communion  with  the  Father  and  in 
loyalty  to  his  will.  This  is  the  way  of  the  filial  Hfe. 
Some  of  us  can  remember  when  it  used  to  be  a 
question  whether  the  example  of  Jesus  was  really 
imitable.  This  was  not  because  we  saw  how  beau- 
tiful the  example  was,  and  knew  that  we  and  all 
men  were  incapable  of  the  like.  In  the  common 
teaching  of  the  time  he  seemed  to  be  set  so  far  away 
from  us,  in  a  personality  so  radically  unlike  our 
own,  as  to  be  out  of  our  class  entirely,  in  a  life  that 
lay  beyond  the  reach  of  our  imitation.  It  is  true 
that  his  example  was  offered  to  us,  in  the  preaching 
that  we  heard,  and  yet  we  could  scarcely  feel  that 
the  offer  was  genuine,  his  distance  from  us  was  so 
great.  We  were  often  told,  indeed,  that  we  must 
not  expect  really  to  resemble  him.  But  the  day  of 
such  impressions  is  passing.  Jesus  is  imitable.  It 
is  true  that  his  pre-eminence  will  not  be  taken  from 
him  by  any  successes  that  we  may  win.  But  we 
sadly  misunderstand  him,  and  our  own  life  also,  if 
we  suspect  that  anything  in  Jesus  places  his  fihal 
example  beyond  the  reach  of  our  imitation.  We 
need  the  revealing  light  of  the  ideal  to  show  us  that 
nothing  good  is  beyond  the  reach  of  imitation.  All 
ideals  are  imitable,  however  unattainable  they  may 


THE  FILIAL  LIFE  163 

be.  The  goodness  of  God  himself  is  imitable.  How 
truly  imitable  Jesus  is  we  see  at  once,  as  soon  as 
we  remember  what  is  the  point  in  question.  It  is 
character.  In  his  life  the  motives  and  inspirations 
that  should  govern  human  beings  are  set  before  us, 
and  a  life  that  resembles  his  will  rise  toward  the  one 
ideal  of  us  all.  The  unity  of  heart  with  the  Father 
that  gave  character  to  his  life  is  open  to  us  through 
the  divine  grace  that  he  made  known.  We  must  not 
lower  our  actual  ideal  by  imagining  that  the  highest 
is  not  for  us.  The  perfect  ideal  should  draw  us  on, 
not  only  to  admire  it  but  to  make  its  likeness  our  own. 


VIII 

DELIVERANCE  FROM  EVIL 

Jesus,  honest  and  true,  taking  men  as  he  found 
them,  knew  them  as  involved  in  moral  evil.  That 
they  were  sinful  he  recognized  as  a  fact.  He  did  not 
discuss  the  nature  of  evil,  or  offer  any  contribution 
to  the  philosophy  of  it.  He  gave  no  light  upon  its 
origin  or  the  extent  of  its  sway.  He  never  spoke  of 
original  sin,  or  represented  men  as  totally  depraved: 
on  the  contrary  he  constantly  implied  by  his  appeals 
that  there  was  good  in  men  as  well  as  evil,  and  enough 
of  good  to  make  it  worth  while  to  appeal  to  them  on 
the  highest  grounds.  Nevertheless  he  steadily  repre- 
sented men  as  so  involved  in  evil  that  escape  from  it 
was  a  necessity.  Indeed,  if  one  understands  at  all 
the  life  that  Jesus  proposes,  it  is  evident  that  it  im- 
plies a  change  great  and  radical  from  the  ordinary 
state  of  mankind,  and  that  the  change  consists  on 
one  side  in  an  escape  from  the  control  of  evil.  That 
life  is  so  full  of  goodness  that  one  cannot  live  it  with- 
out having  been  delivered  from  the  evil  dominion, 
and  the  fulness  of  the  new  life  must  depend  upon  the 
degree  of  the  deliverance.  Escape  from  evil  is  the 
way  of  entrance  to  the  good.  In  Buddhism,  the 
escape  from  evil,  which  is  the  one  thing  desired,  is  an 

164 


DELIVERANCE  FROM  EVIL  165 

end  in  itself,  and  nothing  lies  beyond  it  except  the 
negative  blessedness  of  release,  however  this  may  be 
idealized.  With  Jesus  the  escape  from  evil  is  the 
means  and  manner  of  entrance  into  character  and 
life  in  which  the  ideal  of  existence  is  intelligibly 
fulfilled. 

As  to  the  nature  of  the  evil  in  which  men  are  in- 
volved, Jesus  sets  aside  all  suggestions  of  externalism 
like  ceremonial  defilement,  and  passes  by  all  ideas 
of  hereditary  depravity,  and  declares  that  the  evil 
is  moral,  and  is  within.  "  From  within,  out  of  the 
heart,''  he  says,  proceeds  the  evil  that  works  genu- 
ine defilement  upon  a  man.  Thence  proceed  evil 
thoughts;  thence  also  the  various  impurity  that  works 
out  in  crimes  against  society,  and  thence  such  per- 
sonal traits  as  the  common  judgment  justly  condemns. 
That  is  to  say,  the  evil  from  which  men  need  to  be 
delivered  resides  in  the  realm  of  character.  We 
may  call  this  a  very  obvious  statement,  which  ought 
to  be  unnecessary;  but  it  was  not  superfluous  in  the 
time  of  Jesus,  and  is  not  superfluous  yet.  Men  are 
prone  to  locate  their  evil  somewhere  else  than  in  their 
real  selves,  and  imagine  that  they  owe  it  to  some  exter- 
nal influence.  So  they  do,  of  course,  to  some  extent, 
for  the  hurtful  influences  are  many;  but  deliverance 
from  the  hurtful  influences  would  not  be  deliverance 
from  the  real  evil.  There  would  still  remain  in  every 
man  a  real  centre  and  secret  of  evil,  in  his  own  heart, 
the  seat  of  his  character.  Wrong  character  is  the 
trouble.     The  man  is  not  what  he  ought  to  be.     So 


166  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

Jesus  testifies,  and  so  testifies  the  common  experience. 
The  question  of  human  evil  is  not  at  bottom  a  ques-    ' 
tion  of  misfortune,  but  of  ethics. 

Since  the  human  evil  resides  in  the  realm  of  char- 
acter, the  escape  from  evil  must  consist  in  a  change 
of  character.  There  is  no  other  way  out.  From 
such  evil  there  can  be  no  escape  except  through 
change  from  bad  character  to  good.  I  am  not  speak- 
ing now^  of  escaping  the  consequences  of  evil,  or  of 
the  various  helps  to  deliverance,  or  of  the  conse- 
quences of  the  deliverance,  but  only  of  the  deliver- 
ance itself;  and  what  I  mean  is  that  the  deliverance 
itself  consists  in  the  cessation  of  the  quality  in  the 
heart  that  makes  it  bad,  and  the  opening  of  a  fount 
of  goodness  there  instead.  It  was  the  mission  of 
Jesus  to  make  better  men.  This  was  so  evident  in 
his  day,  and  has  been  so  evident  ever  since,  that  it 
ought  to  be  unnecessary  to  prove  that  the  deliverance 
which  he  proposes  consists  in  change  of  character, 
the  new  making  of  man.  Various  forms  of  doctrine 
have  tended  to  conceal  this  truth,  partly  by  couching 
it  in  technical  language,  but  we  must  not  allow  it 
to  be  concealed. 

Since  the  evil  and  the  escape  reside  in  the  realm  of 
character,  we  are  not  surprised  that  Jesus  did  not 
rely  for  deliverance  of  men  upon  anything  that  does 
not  affect  the  character.  Deliverance  from  evil  is  an 
ethical  work:  of  course  it  is,  for  the  evil  is  ethical. 
There  is  no  place  in  Jesus'  plan  for  deliverance  from 
evil  by  any  process  of  a  magical  nature,  or  by  any 
method  that  does  not  imply  a  moral  experience.     No 


DELIVERANCE  FROM  EVIL  167 

priestly  act  can  effect  It,  or  do  anything  toward  it 
except  through  influence  exerted  in  the  moral  realm. 
Jesus  has  declared  that  no  defilement  of  a  ceremonial 
kind  can  make  a  man  unclean  in  the  sight  of  God, 
and  he  would  equally  hold  that  no  external  act  of  any 
kind  can  do  anything  toward  cleansing  him  of  his 
evil.  Externals  do  not  reach  to  where  the  evil  is. 
No  such  thing  as  baptismal  regeneration  is  conceiva- 
ble within  the  circle  of  Jesus'  ethical  and  spiritual 
ideas.  The  evil  that  resides  in  character  must  in 
character  be  put  away,  and  the  work  that  trans- 
forms character  must  be  inward,  intelligent,  experi- 
mental, reconstructive.  Only  in  actual  living  experi- 
ence can  the  escape  from  evil  be  made.  There  are 
external  helps  that  are  invaluable,  but  they  are  helps 
to  the  experience  of  the  soul,  and  only  as  such  do  they 
forward  the  work  of  deliverance.  All  the  teaching 
of  Jesus  about  escape  from  evil  is  practical  teaching, 
and  is  ethical  in  the  fullest  sense. 

The  central  point  of  this  teaching  appears  in  the 
saying  attributed  to  him  in  the  conversation  with 
Nicodemus  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  "Ye  must  be  born 
again."  If  the  words  are  translated  "Ye  must  be 
born  from  above,"  as  they  may  be,  the  meaning  re- 
mains the  same.  Entrance  to  the  kingdom  of  God 
is  a  new  beginning:  it  is  the  entrance  upon  a  new  Hfe, 
worthy  to  be  called  a  new  birth.  Of  course  the 
language  is  chosen  for  an  illustrative  purpose,  and 
is  figuratively  used:  it  is  not  to  be  pressed  as  if  it 
were  intended  for  literal  description.  We  must  not 
attempt  to  bring  in  all  the  analogies  of  birth  to  com- 


168  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

plete  the  interpretation.  The  point  is  that  the  king- 
dom of  God  postulates  a  change  so  radical  as  to  be 
a  new  beginning  of  life.  The  reason  is  that  the  king- 
dom is  not  of  this  world,  while  men  are.  Here  again 
the  change  is  an  ethical  change,  a  transformation  of 
character.  No  reader  ought  to  be  able  to  doubt  this. 
It  is  not  something  that  is  wrought  upon  a  man,  but 
something  that  is  wrought  in  him.  Hence  it  is  not 
probable  that  Jesus  said  that  a  man  must  be  "born 
of  water."  "Born  of  the  Spirit"  is  characteristic  of 
him,  but  "born  of  water"  is  not.  This  allusion  to 
baptism  as  indispensable  to  entering  the  kingdom, 
and  as  even  an  element  in  the  new  birth  itself,  is  prob- 
ably the  contribution  of  a  later  time,  when  baptism 
had  begun  to  be  accounted  necessary  for  salvation, 
an  idea  utterly  opposite  to  the  thought  of  Jesus.  Ac- 
cording to  his  conceptions  the  new  birth  could  be 
nothing  else  than  a  personal  entering  into  the  spirit 
and  character  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  This  is  of 
course  an  ethical  change,  but  an  ethical  change 
wrought  in  the  spirit  of  religion:  it  is  a  birth  at  once 
into  a  new  relation  to  God  and  into  a  new  character. 
As  all  ethical  work  is  with  Jesus  religious  too,  so  the 
new  birth  of  character  is  truly  a  birth  from  above. 
The  new-born  man  is  born  of  God. 

Many  definitions  and  detailed  descriptions  of  the 
new  birth  have  been  proposed,  but  they  disappoint 
us  if  we  expect  much  from  them.  An  external  de- 
scription of  the  new  birth  is  obvious,  but  an  internal 
description  is  impossible.  The  process  must  be  as 
various  as  human  nature  and  life,  and  it  is  incredible 


DELIVERANCE  FROM  EVIL  169 

that  any  formula  of  it  is  at  our  disposal.  If  we  follow 
the  light  that  we  have  from  the  mind  of  Jesus,  and 
equally  if  we  are  led  by  experience,  we  shall  not 
undertake  to  tell  just  how  the  new  birth  must  come 
to  pass,  or  by  what  particular  set  of  signs  it  must  be 
evidenced,  or  to  decide,  save  as  large  tests  of  character 
may  inform  us,  whether  any  given  person  has  ex- 
perienced it  or  not.  The  field  of  life  is  too  large  and 
various  to  justify  such  dogmatizing.  The  sum  of  the 
matter  is  that  if  a  man  is  coming  into  the  kingdom 
he  must  be  born  into  the  spirit  of  it.  Such  a  birth 
from  above,  ministered  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  means 
transformation  of  character.  The  process  may  be 
swifter  or  more  slow,  and  will  be  great  in  proportion 
to  the  need  of  change.  About  the  method  of  it  there 
can  be  no  rule.  But  it  is  obviously  true  that  through 
such  a  new  birth  the  escape  from  evil  must  be  made. 

As  to  the  human  side  of  the  deliverance  from  evil, 
we  find  that  Jesus  tells  us  of  some  elements  that  enter 
into  it.     One  of  them  is  Repentance. 

The  word  is  not  often  quoted  from  him  in  the 
Gospels,  but  the  idea  is  always  on  the  surface  or  just 
below.  His  whole  claim  impHes  it.  At  the  begin- 
ning of  his  public  work  he  found  the  word  ready  for 
his  use  and  at  once  adopted  it.  John  the  Baptist 
had  made  the  land  ring  with  the  summons,  "  Repent, 
for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand,*'  and  it  is 
recorded  that  Jesus  began  his  preaching  with  the 
utterance  of  the  same  call.  "Repent,  and  believe  in 
the  good  tidings,"  is  the  earliest  exhortation  that  is 


170  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

attributed  to  him.  It  was  well  understood  in  Israel 
•that  repentance  would  be  essential  to  participation 
in  the  blessings  of  the  kingdom  when  it  came,  and 
it  was  a  common  belief  that  God  would  delay  the 
manifestation  of  his  kingdom  until  Israel  was  peni- 
tent enough  to  receive  it  worthily.  However  un- 
spiritual  many  of  the  popular  notions  of  the  king- 
dom may  have  been,  this  was  a  thoroughly  wholesome 
ethical  idea.  Repentance  was  necessary,  as  every 
one  knew,  and  when  the  Baptist  declared  that  the 
kingdom  was  at  hand,  no  one  was  surprised  that  he 
threw  his  whole  soul  into  the  cry,  "Repent,"  or  that 
his  baptism  implied  the  confession  of  repentance. 
And  if  Jesus  discerned  the  spiritual  quality  of  the 
coming  kingdom  better  than  John,  all  the  stronger 
was  the  reason  why  he  should  take  up  John's  word. 
The  more  spiritual  the  kingdom,  the  more  urgent  the 
demand;  and  as  we  Hsten  to  Jesus  through  his  minis- 
try we  see  that  he  never  came  to  a  moment  at  which 
this  was  not  the  very  word  that  suited  his  purpose. 
This  living  context  of  the  earliest  preaching  re- 
minds us  of  what  repentance  really  is.  If  men  are  to 
enter  the  kingdom  of  God  and  live  its  life,  they  need 
to  come  in  true  sincerity  out  of  the  moral  state  in 
which  they  are  unfit  for  it.  The  repentance  to  which 
Jesus  called  was  the  state  of  mind  and  will  in  which 
a  man  would  forsake  his  sins.  It  occurs  whenever 
some  holier  power  has  taken  sufficiently  control- 
ling hold  upon  the  soul.  The  holier  influence  says, 
**Come  away  from  your  evil,"  and  the  soul,  seeing 
the  evil  somewhat  as  it  is,  comes  away — not  perfectly 


DELIVERANCE   FROM  EVIL  171 

at  once,  for  that  is  a  work  of  time,  and  yet  with  a  gen- 
uine will  of  abandonment.  Repentance  is  the  son's 
coming  to  himself  in  the  far  country  and  setting  out 
to  go  home  to  his  father.  Both  are  included,  the  in- 
ward awakening  and  the  homeward  turn,  the  change 
of  feeling  and  the  change  of  will,  the  revulsion  against 
sin  and  the  leaving  it.  Both  are  right  and  necessary, 
and  the  first  is  incomplete  without  the  second.  The 
experience  may  be  painful  and  even  full  of  agony  or 
not,  as  the  case  may  be.  The  will  to  abandon  sin 
may  rend  the  soul,  or  it  may  bring  the  joy  and  exulta- 
tion of  release,  or  it  may  be  a  quiet  resolve  that  does 
not  stir  the  depths  of  feeling.  It  may  well  be  painful, 
for  it  naturally  includes  a  more  or  less  impressive 
sense  of  guilt  for  the  past  that  is  now  forsaken.  The 
pain  is  the  element  that  has  been  most  talked  about, 
and  repentance  is  often  defined  as  sorrow  for  sin. 
But  the  sorrow  is  of  variable  amount,  and  its  signifi- 
cance is  secondary,  the  main  point  being  the  action. 
Thus  conceived,  repentance  is  not  a  solitary  event  in 
a  life,  a  step  taken  once  for  all  and  finished,  for  higher 
principles  ought  always  to  be  showing  us  the  evil 
of  our  inferior  ways  and  drawing  or  driving  us  out 
of  them,  and  such  change  in  us  will  always  be  covered 
by  Jesus'  idea  of  repentance.  Repentance  is  simply 
one  part  in  our  response  to  the  upward  call,  and  Jesus 
would  have  us  repent  as  often  and  as  long  as  there  is 
anything  to  be  repented  of. 

Though  the  word  is  not  very  often  used,  evidently 
the  call  for  repentance  is  a  primary  note,  sounding 
through  all  the  teaching  of  Jesus.     It  fits  perfectly 


172  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

into  his  view  of  life,  and  permanently.  The  duty  and 
privilege  are  axiomatic.  Repentance  is  a  part  of  the 
ideal,  for  a  sinful  man  cannot  become  right  in  any 
other  way;  no  repentance,  no  rightness:  no  breaking 
off  the  worse  life,  no  entrance  to  the  better.  If  the 
time  ever  comes  when  men  are  no  longer  sinful  in 
heart  or  living  below  their  best,  repentance  may  cease, 
but  not  till  then.  It  is  no  part  of  the  ideal  for  the  per- 
fect God,  but  it  is  absolutely  the  ideal  step  for  a  sin- 
ful man  to  take.  The  kingdom  of  God  is  always  at 
hand  in  some  form,  coming  and  to  come,  and  it  al- 
ways remains  true  that  if  men  are  to  receive  it  and 
enter  they  must  be  changed  into  its  spirit.  The  ex- 
perience will  be  endlessly  various,  and  yet  in  its 
inmost  meaning  it  will  be  always  one. 

In  the  deliverance  from  evil  a  true  companion  to 
repentance  is  Self-denial;  and  this  also  Jesus  insists 
upon  as  indispensable.  The  philosophy  of  its  posi- 
tion is  very  simple.  The  difficulties  of  sound  moral 
and  religious  life  are  not  all  on  the  outside,  as  we 
sometimes  wish  they  were  and  try  to  think  they  are. 
If  the  enemies  were  all  without,  the  warfare  would  be 
simpler.  But  for  the  purposes  of  sound  living,  and 
of  escape  from  evil,  the  man  who  must  be  the  actor 
is  unsteady,  fickle,  and  untrustworthy,  and  part  of 
the  time  at  least  he  makes  inward  resistance.  It  often 
seems  as  if  he  were  divided  and  there  were  two  selves, 
a  higher  and  a  lower,  one  upreaching  and  the  other 
dragging  down.  So  strong  is  this  appearance  that 
the  actual  division  of  the  man  has  often  been  held  as 


DELIVERANCE   FROM  EVIL  173 

a  Christian  doctrine.  But  there  is  no  division  in  the 
human  constitution.  The  personality  of  the  man  is 
not  divided  betv^een  good  and  evil,  but  his  character 
is,  w^ith  the  result  that  by  his  ov^n  will  and  act  he  now 
aids  and  now  resists  the  demand  of  the  right  and 
filial  life.  The  same  self  does  both.  Of  course  the 
upward  reaching  is  the  normal  action,  to  which  alone 
hope  and  destiny  belong;  in  this  alone  is  the  true 
ideal  of  life:  wherefore  the  self  must  be  encouraged 
in  this  and  denied  its  false  luxury  of  dragging  down- 
ward. Hence  the  Christian  duty  and  privilege  of 
self-denial,  and  hence  the  Christian  definition  of  it. 
A  man  must  deny  and  resist  himself  in  his  downward 
leadings  and  doings,  that  he  may  bring  his  powers 
into  unity  and  steady  work,  for  promotion  of  the 
higher  ends.  Self-denial  is  opposition  to  one's  own 
opposition  to  the  good,  with  sacrifice  of  any  self- 
interest  that  would  forbid  the  holy  attainment.  The 
downward  insistence  is  apt  to  be  strongest  when  some 
self-interest  is  involved,  though  this  may  sometimes 
seem  quite  innocent,  so  that  to  deny  the  downward 
self  may  imply  much  self-sacrifice.  But  plainly  it 
is  a  necessary  part  of  self-mastery. 

Jesus  gives  various  exhortations  to  self-denial 
which  serve  to  illustrate  what  it  is.  Rather  than  be 
led  into  sin,  he  says,  cut  off  a  hand  or  pluck  out  an 
eye,  and  cast  it  away;  sacrifice  anything  that  is  an 
occasion  of  stumbling,  however  precious.  We  have 
already  seen  how  impossible  it  is  to  take  this  literally. 
Self-mutilation  cannot  stop  sin.  As  he  said  of  food, 
so  he  might  say  of  bodily  organs,  that  their  work 


174  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

"entereth  not  into  the  heart/'  But  the  Master's 
urgency  is  none  the  less  for  want  of  HteraHsm.  The 
will  to  be  good  should  be  strong  enough  to  sustain  a 
man  in  any  sacrifice  that  is  necessary  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  his  object.  Anything  that  does  '* enter 
into  the  heart"  with  its  evil  influence  and  corrupt 
the  real  man  must  go,  though  it  be  as  indispensable 
as  hand  or  eye.  Any  honest  hearer  must  feel  that 
this  is  a  perfectly  reasonable  demand. 

"If  a  man  come  after  me,"  he  says  again,  he  must 
"hate  his  father  and  mother  and  wife  and  children 
and  brethren,  yea,  and  his  own  life  also."  The 
natural  affections  appeal  tenderly  to  the  heart,  but 
one  must  prefer  that  which  Jesus  stands  for  to  them 
all,  and  must  sacrifice  them  all  and  turn  against  them 
if  they  thoroughly  resist  him  in  his  Christian  loyalty. 
Not  that  Jesus  considers  these  affections  valueless  or 
unworthy,  or  that  the  relations  that  inspire  them  de- 
serve to  be  hated;  and  not  that  there  is  any  virtue 
in  hating  them  for  its  own  sake.  It  is  just  because 
they  are  so  noble  and  precious  that  they  are  here 
brought  into  comparison  with  that  which  transcends 
them.  There  is  only  one  thing  above  them,  and  that 
is  loyalty  to  God  and  truth  and  righteousness,  and 
for  this  a  man  is  to  sacrifice  them  all  if  he  must.  The 
Christian  choice,  which  is  the  same  as  the  sound 
ethical  choice,  is  a  very  simple  and  radical  one,  for 
it  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  choice  between  the 
best  and  the  inferior.  If  a  man  really  finds  himself 
clinging  to  friend  or  kinsman  as  against  God,  and 
there  is  no  other  way  out  of  it,  it  is  reasonable  to 


DELIVERANCE   FROM  EVIL  175 

say  that  he  must  deny  himself  and  sacrifice  the 
friend. 

Again,  "  If  a  man  would  come  after  me,  let  him 
deny  himself,  and  take  up  his  cross,  and  follow  me." 
To  Jesus  the  cross,  symbol  of  death,  was  the  burden 
appointed  by  the  Father,  to  be  borne  and  not  laid 
down.  Every  disciple  must  follow  him  in  the  same 
spirit  of  loyal  obedience  in  which  he  bore  his  destiny 
of  death.  It  is  not  meant  that  every  disciple  must 
expect  to  die  for  his  sake,  for  that  was  not  true  when 
the  words  were  spoken,  and  has  never  been  true  since. 
But  whether  the  burden  assigned  by  God  be  death 
or  anything  else  light  or  heavy,  the  disciple  must  bear 
it  after  Jesus;  and  as  in  Jesus'  case,  the  bearing  of 
it  must  be  so  much  a  part  of  his  very  self  that  he  would 
go  to  death  rather  than  surrender  it  by  lowering  the 
high  aim  and  abandoning  the  ideal.  Self-interest 
or  the  love  of  ease  may  resist  the  acceptance  of  it 
and  rebel  against  the  load,  but  the  disciple  is  to  deny 
this  resisting  self  and  loyally  carry  the  burden. 

To  the  rich  young  man  Jesus  said,  "Sell  all,  give 
to  the  poor,  and  come,  follow  me."  An  exceptional 
test,  no  doubt,  for  the  circumstances  that  determined 
the  form  of  it  would  not  often  occur,  but  not  ex- 
ceptional in  principle.  "Ye  cannot  serve  God  and 
Mammon,"  and  the  young  man  himself  was  choosing 
the  wrong  master,  although  he  did  not  know  it,  and 
so  his  self  was  to  be  denied.  So  strong  was  the  hold 
of  his  wealth  that  only  a  great  renunciation  could  set 
him  free  to  eternal  life,  which  he  thought  he  desired. 
Indeed  he  did  desire  it,  in  part,  but  his  real  self  was 


176  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

on  the  other  side.  So  this  call  for  a  drastic  self-denial, 
bitter  as  it  seemed  to  him,  stands  in  no  contrast  with 
the  winning  invitation,  "Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that 
labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest," 
but  is  simply  one  form  of  it,  adapted  to  this  special 
case,  and  showing  this  man  by  what  means  he  must 
enter  into  the  rest.  And  though  the  test  seems  ex- 
ceptional, what  Jesus  added  about  the  difficulty  of 
rich  men's  entering  the  kingdom  shows  that  he  re- 
garded very  many  as  in  need  of  a  self-denial  that 
would  break  up  the  whole  tenor  of  their  life. 

In  all  this  we  must  note  how  sane  and  reasonable 
is  Jesus'  idea  of  self-denial.  According  to  him  self- 
denial  is  always  for  a  purpose:  it  is  a  means,  not  an 
end.  It  is  never  for  its  own  sake,  as  if  there  were 
independent  virtue  in  the  very  act,  or  as  if  human 
nature  and  its  desires  were  fit  only  to  be  trampled  on. 
Self-denial,  like  repentance,  is  a  natural  and  neces- 
sary part  of  the  way  from  evil  to  good.  In  making 
that  great  transition,  a  man  will  have  to  deny  his  own 
wrong  self-assertions  and  resist  his  wrong  resist- 
ances, all  for  the  sake  of  the  end  in  view.  Christians 
have  too  often  missed  the  Master's  point  and  looked 
upon  self-denial  as  somehow  an  end  in  itself.  Hu- 
man nature  has  been  disparaged  and  despised,  partly 
because  it  was  so  low  and  little  in  comparison  with 
the  divine,  but  more  because  it  was  thought  to  be 
totally  depraved;  wherefore  it  has  been  counted  a 
virtue  to  contradict  its  desires  and  trample  upon  all 
that  pertains  to  it.  Sometimes  men  have  been  told 
that  self  must  be  denied  just  because  it  is  self,  which 


DELIVERANCE  FROM  EVIL  177 

has  no  rights.  But  all  this  is  far  from  the  thought  of 
Jesus.  We  remember  how  he  said,  *'Thou  shalt  love 
thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  blaming  no  one  for  loving 
himself  in  proper  measure.  Jesus  knew  nothing  of 
any  essential  contemptibleness  in  human  nature — 
did  not  he  himself  bear  it .? — or  any  unmitigated 
sinfulness  in  men.  His  idea  of  self-denial  is  quite 
separate  from  such  considerations.  He  sets  forth  a 
great  end  to  be  attained,  worthy  of  the  utmost  hu- 
man endeavor,  and  inspires  us  to  feel  that  for  the  sake 
of  this  it  is  an  honorable,  wise,  and  happy  thing  to  con- 
tradict the  self  that  refuses  the  best  good — the  contra- 
diction being  intended,  of  course,  to  bring  the  resisting 
self  to  terms  and  teach  it  the  better  way.  This  is  the 
only  principle  on  which  he  calls  for  self-denial — that 
the  end  requires  it  and  deserves  it.  Self-denial  is 
self-rectification:  it  is  effort  to  get  the  self  in  hand. 
Here  appears  the  Master's  rationality.  This  is 
simply  the  common  and  reasonable  doctrine,  raised 
to  a  high  power.  Self-denial  is  no  specialty  of  Jesus 
and  his  religion,  or  of  religion  at  all.  It  is  one  of  the 
oldest  elements  in  Hfe.  All  religions  of  any  earnest- 
ness have  called  for  it,  and  apart  from  all  religious 
considerations  it  is  one  of  the  commonest  things  in 
the  world.  Love  knows  it  well,  and  so  do  all  other 
powerful  passions.  Parents  deny  themselves  for  the 
sake  of  their  children,  and  individuals  for  the  good  of 
society.  Men  are  always  denying  themselves,  or 
turning  back  resisting  impulses  and  setting  aside 
conflicting  interests,  for  their  own  advantage,  for 
fame  or  wealth  or  pleasure,  for  lust  or  revenge  or 


178  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

appetite,  for  love  or  beauty,  for  charity's  sake,  for 
patriotism,  for  a  cause  whether  good  or  bad,  for  the 
satisfaction  of  an  ideal.  There  is  hardship  in  self- 
denial,  but  all  the  world  knows  what  it  is  to  welcome 
the  hardship  for  the  sake  of  the  end  in  view.  Jesus 
asks  no  more  than  worldly  or  selfish  interests  have 
always  asked:  he  merely  takes  the  common  principle 
and  applies  it  to  the  supreme  need  and  interest  of 
man.  What  men  have  always  been  doing,  and  ex- 
pected to  do,  for  the  sake  of  ordinary  ends,  he  now 
bids  them  do  with  all  their  hearts  for  the  highest. 
When  Jesus  looks  out  upon  his  ideal  he  indeed  be- 
holds a  world  involved  in  evil,  but  he  sees  men 
struggling  out  of  the  evil  by  their  best  endeavors, 
and  gladly  beating  back  and  conquering  every  im- 
pulse in  themselves  that  would  prevent  them  from 
coming  out  into  the  free  activities  of  the  kingdom 
and  family  of  God. 

Thus  far  the  deliverance  from  evil  may  appear  to 
be  wholly  a  matter  of  ethics,  a  work  to  be  accom- 
plished by  man  himself;  for  repentance  and  self-denial 
look  like  purely  human  works.  But  it  would  be  a 
great  mistake  to  think  so.  Jesus  does  not  lead  men 
to  expect  the  escape  from  evil  to  be  made  through 
repentance  and  self-denial,  or  through  any  action  of 
their  own,  taken  by  itself.  The  part  is  not  the  whole, 
and  the  human  part,  while  it  is  indispensable,  is 
secondary.  God's  part  is  primary,  and  but  for  it  the 
deliverance  that  Jesus  proclaims  would  be  impossible. 
He  locates  the  experience,  so  to  speak,  in  the  realm 


DELIVERANCE  FROM  EVIL  179 

of  religion,  as  truly  as  in  that  of  ethics.     This  is  the 
glory  of  his  message  of  salvation. 

Jesus  conceived  of  himself  as  the  messenger  of  the 
helpful  grace  of  God,  who  had  sent  him  to  seek  and 
to  save  that  vs^hich  was  lost.  This  God  had  done 
because  the  saving  of  men  from  sin  was  the  object 
dearest  to  his  heart.  All  the  doctrines  of  free  grace 
that  his  apostles  developed  were  but  unfoldings  of 
the  fundamental  truth  that  Jesus  himself  proclaimed. 
He  taught  men  to  rely  confidently  upon  God,  who 
is  beforehand  with  them  all  in  the  matter  of  deliver- 
ance from  evil.  He  labored  to  leave  no  room  for 
doubt  that  God  is  eagerly  interested  in  making  men 
good  and  right.  He  loves  to  pardon  all  who  come  to 
him,  and  he  delights  to  renew  the  heart  and  life.  If 
men  are  brought  over  from  evil  to  good,  it  will  be 
because  his  unbounded  desire  to  deliver  them  has 
had  its  way;  for  antecedent  to  all  deliverance  from 
evil  is  the  grace  of  God.  His  heart  is  set  on  this,  and 
only  when  he  accomplishes  this  is  he  satisfied  con- 
cerning men.  Jesus  would  make  men  know  that 
it  is  God's  nature  to  be  a  Saviour,  and  lead  them  to 
construct  and  govern  their  life  in  view  of  such  a  God. 
His  doctrine  of  the  attitude  of  God  toward  the  sinful, 
as  a  Saviour  God,  was  partly  known  through  Hebrew 
prophets  who  had  obtained  glimpses  of  the  truth,  and 
yet  when  he  proclaimed  it  it  was  almost  new  in 
the  world.  It  came  as  a  revelation,  and  it  is  still  a 
revelation  of  incomparable  importance  to  mankind. 
It  still  needs  to  be  proclaimed  aloud  to  Christen- 
dom, for  in  various  ways  it  has  been  astonishingly 


180  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

obscured.  And  yet  It  belongs  not  only  to  the  ideal 
of  Jesus,  but  to  any  ideal  with  which  humanity  has 
a  right  to  be  satisfied.  The  true  ideal  of  life  must 
conceive  of  men  as  embraced  in  the  comprehensive 
care  of  a  God  whose  joy  it  is  to  do  them  good, 
and  who  cannot  rest  without  delivering  them  from 
evil. 

Of  this  most  inspiring  truth  concerning  God  we 
have  the  classical  illustration  in  the  so-called  Parables 
of  Recovery.  These  parables  have  had  a  large  place 
in  the  appeals  of  religion,  but  have  never  yet  fully 
come  to  their  own  in  the  field  of  theology.  Their 
teaching  has  been  so  effective  in  religion,  partly 
because  it  came  straight  out  of  the  real  life  of  Jesus 
himself  in  contact  with  sinful  men,  and  partly  be- 
cause it  is  so  self-evidencing  in  its  testimony  con- 
cerning God.  PubHcans  and  sinners,  drawn  to  re- 
pentance by  Jesus'  influence,  are  welcomed  by  him 
with  gladness,  and  scribes  and  Pharisees  find  fault 
with  him  for  treating  them  so  well.  But  Jesus  an- 
swers to  the  eflPect  that  at  any  rate  God  is  glad  of 
their  coming  to  him,  and  all  ought  to  join  in  his  re- 
joicing. Human  beings  who  have  lost  what  belongs 
to  them  seek  it  eagerly,  he  says,  and  rejoice  when 
they  have  found  it,  and  make  no  secret  of  their  joy, 
but  want  company  in  it.  The  shepherd  seeks  his 
sheep,  the  woman  her  piece  of  money,  and  both  call 
upon  their  neighbors  to  rejoice  with  them  when  their 
search  has  been  successful.  The  father  is  on  the 
watch  for  the  returning  of  the  son  who  has  gone 
astray,  and  makes  great  rejoicing  when  the  wan- 
derer,  having  learned    the   true   lesson    of  the   far 


DELIVERANCE   FROM  EVIL  181 

country,  has  come  penitently  home.  By  these  pict- 
ures Jesus  represents  the  attitude  of  God  toward 
men  in  their  sinful  aHenation  from  himself.  The 
men  are  his  own,  and  he  does  not  give  them  up 
though  they  have  gone  away  from  him:  he  desires 
their  salvation,  seeks  them,  welcomes  them  when 
they  come,  and  joys  over  them  when  they  are  with 
him  again.  Only  ungracious  souls,  portrayed  in  the 
unlovely  picture  of  the  elder  brother,  will  refuse  to 
rejoice  with  God  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth. 
Such  a  God  as  this,  Jesus  would  give  men  to  under- 
stand, is  the  God  with  whom  they  have  to  do. 

This  free  and  helpful  grace  toward  the  sinful,  and 
man's  acceptance  of  it,  are  variously  illustrated  in 
Jesus'  dealings  with  people  around  him.  He  goes 
out  of  his  way  to  seek  Zacchaeus  the  publican,  and 
Zacchaeus  responds  to  the  divine  endeavor  to  bring 
him  to  a  better  life;  whereupon  Jesus  bears  witness 
to  God's  acceptance  of  the  man,  and  testifies  that 
"the  Son  of  man  is  come  to  seek  and  to  save  that 
which  was  lost."  The  sinful  woman  in  Simon's 
house  comes  with  a  passion  of  weeping  to  answer 
Jesus'  call  with  penitence  and  a  holy  consecration, 
and  is  bidden  go  in  peace,  with  her  many  sins  for- 
given. In  the  parable  the  publican  casts  himself 
trustfully  upon  the  willingness  of  God  to  be  merciful 
to  him  a  sinner,  and  is  justified.  In  all  this  God 
has  drawn  out  faith  in  himself  as  the  Saviour  of 
men.  It  is  not  called  faith,  but  faith  clear  and  simple 
shines  out  with  divine  beauty  in  this  free  response 
and  self-commitment  of  sinful  beings  to  the  grace 
that  saves. 


182  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

In  these  narratives,  and  elsewhere  in  our  records, 
bright  and  joyful  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  presence 
in  God  of  the  forgiving  heart.  In  the  Lord's  prayer, 
Jesus  implies  that  God  is  always  ready  to  receive 
and  grant  his  children's  request  for  his  forgiveness. 
The  father's  forgiveness  is  voiced  in  his  joy  over  the 
returning  prodigal.  "Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee" 
is  the  word  of  blessing  to  the  paralytic  before  he  is 
healed.  No  condition  to  the  divine  forgiveness  ap- 
pears in  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  except  that  the  sinner 
must  be  turning  away  from  his  sin,  and  that  the  one 
who  seeks  for  pardon  must  be  giving  his  own  pardon 
to  others.  The  conditions  are  all  ethical  in  their 
nature — that  is,  they  are  such  conditions  as  the  moral 
nature  of  forgiveness  requires;  they  are  not  condi- 
tions devised,  but  conditions  inherent  in  the  case. 
And  they  are  all  on  the  human  side,  so  far  as  Jesus 
bears  witness.  He  represents  the  divine  forgiveness 
as  flowing  forth  freely  wherever  there  is  a  soul  that 
is  morally  prepared  to  receive  the  blessing.  God's 
heart  is  free  and  his  way  is  open.  Nothing  outside 
of  God  and  the  woman  appears  to  have  been  required 
to  justifiy  the  pardon  of  the  sinful  woman  in  Simon's 
house.  Whether  he  thinks  of  himself  in  ethical  re- 
lations or  in  religious,  the  sinful  man  who  is  minded 
to  forsake  his  evil  way  is  encouraged  by  Jesus  to 
do  precisely  what  he  was  long  ago  exhorted  to  do 
in  the  fifty-fifth  chapter  of  Isaiah — "Let  him  return 
unto  the  Lord  and  he  will  have  mercy  upon  him,  and 
unto  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly  pardon." 

In   this   testimony   about   deliverance   from   evil 


DELIVERANCE   FROM  EVIL  183 

through  the  grace  of  God  Jesus  gave  an  inestimable 
blessing  to  humanity.  Two  dangers  beset  men  when 
they  are  awakened  to  their  need  of  deliverance  from 
evil.  On  the  one  hand,  they  know  that  their  own 
effort  is  indispensable  to  the  result,  and  may  easily 
imagine  that  it  is  sufficient  too.  Indispensable  it  is, 
Jesus  tells  them,  in  its  own  place,  but  not  sufficient, 
for  they  are  bound  by  real  ties  to  God.  But,  on  the 
other  hand^  if  they  feel  that  the  case  is  serious  be- 
cause sin  is  so  great,  they  may  shrink  in  fear  from 
God,  since  they  know  him  only  from  afar,  and  are 
uncertain  of  his  willingness  to  save.  Most  suspicious 
of  him,  indeed,  they  are  apt  to  be,  and  incredulous 
about  his  grace.  That  they  are  dependent  upon  the 
grace  of  God,  Jesus  does  not  let  them  doubt,  and  the 
sufficiency  of  that  grace  he  sets  in  the  clearest  light. 
Knowledge  of  the  free  saving  God  is  his  gift.  He 
sets  the  human  endeavor,  necessary  but  secondary, 
in  its  true  relation  to  an  all-embracing  love. 

In  this  he  lays  down  what  Christians  are  beginning 
to  dare  take  as  a  fundamental  truth  of  religion,  and 
of  ethics  too.  The  human  life,  personal  and  general, 
is  lived  within  the  friendly  circle  of  the  divine  life, 
and  from  the  eternal  good-will  there  flows  perpetual 
encouragement  to  all  right  aspiration  and  endeavor; 
consequently,  what  no  human  endeavor  could  effect 
the  divine  grace  is  freely  accomplishing — men  are  de- 
livered from  evil.  The  past  is  forgiven,  the  house- 
hold of  God  becomes  their  home,  and  power  for  all 
sound  life  is  imparted  to  them.  The  ideal  of  Jesus 
includes  not  only  men  struggling  away  from  evil  by 


184  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

their  best  efforts,  as  we  have  seen,  but  men  struggling 
thus  because  God  lives  and  works;  men  sustained 
in  their  endeavor  to  escape  from  evil  by  a  sufficient 
and  unfailing  grace;  men  escaping  and  escaped  into 
the  righteousness  of  the  family  of  God.  By  this 
revelation  that  we  have  our  being  in  the  atmostphere 
of  divine  help,  Jesus  stands  as  the  minister  of  hope 
to  all  human  striving  after  goodness.  And  since  God 
is  one  and  the  same  to  all,  Jesus  is  the  minister  of  such 
hope  not  to  a  few  men  only  but  to  all  men,  and  his 
gospel,  the  proclamation  of  the  real  God  for  the  help- 
ing of  the  real  human  need,  is  a  gospel  universal, 
adapted  to  all  mankind. 


IX 

LIBERTY 

From  the  comments  that  Jesus  made  upon  some 
events  we  may  draw  a  clear  doctrine  of  liberty,  and 
one  that  is  of  the  very  substance  of  his  ideal.  We  do 
not  know  that  he  ever  used  the  word,  but  he  did  set 
forth  the  thing,  and  the  conception  is  so  characteristic 
of  him  that  when  once  we  have  grasped  it  we  can 
never  again  detach  it  from  the  body  of  his  teaching. 
It  is  a  permanent  doctrine  too:  in  spite  of  all  changes 
in  the  conditions  of  life  it  still  stands  firm  and  is  of 
the  utmost  value  to-day. 

The  background  is  the  situation  of  his  own  time 
and  country.  The  conditions  of  life  were  not  favor- 
able to  personal  independence  and  self-direction,  but 
rather  to  spiritual  bondage.  Doubtless  there  was 
much  religion  of  the  better  kind  in  the  quiet  life  of 
the  people,  and  among  leaders  too,  but  in  the  ruling 
religious  scheme  there  was  small  room  for  genuine 
liberty,  such  as  the  best  life  in  ethics  and  religion 
needs  for  its  atmosphere.  Legalism  was  the  only 
orthodoxy.  In  the  whole  law  the  voice  of  God  was 
heard:  it  sounded  in  the  additions  that  had  been 
made  by  interpretation,  as  well  as  in  the  parts  that  were 

regarded  as  original.     The  righteousness  of  scribes 

185 


186  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

and  Pharisees,  gained  by  obedience  to  specific  com- 
mands, was  what  the  people  were  taught  to  beheve 
in  and  to  seek,  and  in  order  to  obtain  it  of  course  they 
must  keep  the  whole  law.  The  result  was  a  minute 
supervision  of  conduct.  Either  a  man  kept  the  law 
or  he  did  not,  and  if  he  did  not  his  free  intercourse 
with  God  was  supposed  to  be  interrupted.  Con- 
formity to  the  external  parts  of  the  law  was  most 
easily  tested,  and  therefore  received  the  most  atten- 
tion. Thus  in  all  the  matters  that  were  most  vital 
to  his  spiritual  welfare  the  law,  not  the  man  himself, 
determined  what  a  man  should  do;  and  it  was  mainly 
an  outward  law.  Independent  judgment  was  ruled 
out.  Loyalty  to  God  was  loyalty  to  a  system  of 
commandments.  A  man  had  no  right  to  judge  for 
himself  as  to  anything  on  which  the  law  had  spoken. 
He  ought  to  be  governed  by  his  conscience,  but  con- 
science meant  sense  of  duty  to  keep  the  law:  other- 
wise, conscience  did  not  come  into  the  account. 
Strict  lawkeepers  saw  no  good  in  any  kind  of  Hfe 
but  this,  even  though  it  were  a  more  spiritual  way. 
"This  multitude  that  knoweth  not  the  law  are  ac- 
cursed," is  quoted  from  scribes  and  Pharisees.  Yet 
naturally  there  might  be  among  the  "accursed" 
multitude  some  who  were  really  more  religious  than 
those  who  despised  them. 

Jesus  lived  under  this  system,  and  understood  it 
well,  but  legalism  was  altogether  strange  to  his  life 
and  thought.  He  once  directed  a  leper  whom  he  had 
healed  to  obtain  from  the  priest  a  legal  certificate  of 
his  restoration  to  health,  in  order  that  he  might  be 


LIBERTY  187 

free  to  resume  his  place  in  society  as  a  well  man; 
but  this  was  an  act  of  mercy,  not  of  legalism. 
There  is  no  record  that  for  himself  he  ever  per- 
formed any  act  of  ceremonial  obedience,  in  the  time 
that  the  Gospels  cover,  or  paid  any  form  of  legal 
deference  to  the  law.  As  for  his  disciples,  we  shall 
see  how  he  inspired  them  very  early  to  a  new  kind 
of  practice.  It  was  indispensable  that  he  should, 
if  they  were  to  be  his  disciples  indeed.  The  system 
in  which  they  had  been  reared  did  not  tend  to  make 
them  independent  moral  agents.  It  gave  no  frank 
encouragement  to  free  personal  action,  the  inde- 
pendent work  of  real  character.  It  made  something 
else  than  a  man's  conscience  the  judge  of  what  he  was 
and  did.  But  against  the  legahsm  that  thus  omitted 
the  conscience  and  suppressed  the  soul  Jesus  pro- 
claimed a  genuine  personal  hberty  and  openly  set 
his  friends  at  work  in  making  use  of  it.  He  never 
called  it  liberty,  or  gave  it  any  name  at  all,  or  formu- 
lated any  doctrine  of  it,  but  Hberty  it  was,  and  nothing 
else.  He  was  well  aware  that  to  claim  it  for  himself 
and  encourage  it  in  others  was  a  most  heretical 
thing,  but  he  paid  no  heed  to  that,  and  went  squarely 
in  the  face  of  the  orthodoxy  of  his  time  in  practising 
and  encouraging  liberty. 

There  is  a  very  striking  illustration  in  his  answer 
to  an  inquiry  about  fasting.  Certain  Pharisees,  and 
certain  disciples  of  John  the  Baptist,  observed  that 
his  disciples  did  not  fast,  as  their  own  authorities 
required  and  as  they  supposed  all  true  religion  must 


188  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

require,  and  asked  Jesus  why.  It  is  interesting,  and 
surprising  too,  to  note  that  the  disciples  were  not 
questioned  about  his  practice,  but  he  about  theirs. 
They  were  the  transgressors — whence  we  can  only 
infer  that  under  his  influence  they  were  already  act- 
ing in  personal  independence  in  turning  away  from 
some  of  the  prescribed  fasts.  He  defended  them, 
and  gave  reasons,  first  why  his  disciples  did  not  fast, 
and  then  why  they  should  not  be  required  to  fast. 
His  reason  why  his  disciples  did  not  fast  was  that 
at  that  time  fasting  was  not  suited  to  their  condition. 
He  showed  it  by  a  kind  of  parable.  **Can  the  chil- 
dren of  the  bridechamber  fast  while  the  bridegroom 
is  with  them  I  As  long  as  they  have  the  bridegroom 
with  them  they  cannot  fast.  But  days  will  come 
when  the  bridegroom  is  taken  away  from  them;  and 
then  will  they  fast,  in  that  day."  As  if  he  had  said, 
''Fasting  is  a  fit  sign  of  sorrow,  but  their  life  with 
me  is  joyful,  as  at  a  wedding  feast.  Not  until  they 
mourn  the  loss  of  me,  the  bridegroom  who  glad- 
dens them,  will  fasting  suit  their  case.  When  it  suits 
their  case  it  will  come  of  itself."  Possibly  the  half- 
parabolic  manner  of  this  utterance  concealed  a  little 
of  its  radical  quality;  but  if  his  hearers  understood 
him  they  knew  that  he  was  giving  an  independent 
and  radical  re-estimation  of  an  institution  that  was 
authorized  by  the  law.  He  dared  to  say  that  his  dis- 
ciples would  fast  of  their  own  accord  when  it  meant 
something  to  them,  but  need  not  fast  until  it  did. 
Till  it  has  significance  in  their  life  they  "cannot  fast"; 
that  is,  they  cannot  perform  it  as  a  rational  and  sig- 


LIBERTY  189 

nificant  act,  and  therefore  it  is  not  required  of  them. 
If  we  were  to  state  the  principle  that  underlies  this, 
it  would  be,  "What  cannot  be  done  with  meaning 
is  not  required."  Thus  an  established  service  of  the 
law  is  taken  entirely  out  of  the  category  of  acts  that 
must  be  done  because  they  are  commanded,  and 
counted  as  an  act  that  is  to  be  done  when  it  has 
meaning  enough  to  make  it  worth  doing.  In  deter- 
mining what  a  man  is  to  do,  his  condition  is  ranked 
above  the  law,  and  his  own  judgment  is  set  to  de- 
cide the  question.  The  law  calls  for  fasting,  but  the 
man's  condition  does  not:  the  man  decides  not  to 
fast,  and  Jesus  justifies  him.  What  liberty  is  this! 
A  man  is  made  the  judge  of  his  own  conduct,  and  is 
approved  even  though  his  judgment  decides  against 
that  which  the  law  requires. 

This  first  part  of  the  answer  brings  the  disciples 
out  from  under  the  ancient  law,  and  sets  them  in 
a  free  and  independent  life.  As  Jesus  himself  has 
brought  them  out,  it  is  plain  that  their  new  life  is  to 
be  under  his  influence;  and  in  the  second  part  of  the 
answer  he  tells  why  in  this  new  life  there  can  be  no 
requirement  of  fasting.  Here  he  uses  a  pair  of  illus- 
trations. We  are  wont  to  read  him  so  solemnly  that 
perhaps  we  scarcely  dare  to  notice  the  gleam  of 
humor  in  his  picture  of  the  old  clothes  and  the  new 
patches  on  them,  but  it  is  there;  we  should  see  it  too 
in  the  picture  of  the  wine-skins,  if  we  were  accus- 
tomed to  wine-skins.  The  point  is  that  the  old  system 
to  which  fasting  belongs  is  like  an  old  garment,  while 
his  own  new  method  of  life  is  like  a  piece  of  new, 


190  THE  IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

strong  cloth;  the  old  system  is  like  weak  old  wine- 
skins, while  his  new  spirit  is  like  strong  new  wine. 
He  is  not  here  to  patch  up  the  old,  or  to  save  it  from 
too  great  a  strain.  If  he  were  to  put  his  new  life  on 
as  a  patch  to  the  old  Jewish  system,  it  would  neither 
match  nor  hold,  but  would  make  a  failure  every  way. 
If  he  were  to  put  his  new  vital  force  into  the  enfeebled 
Jewish  order,  something  would  break.  New  ways 
for  new  powers.  The  free  life  must  have  its  own 
modes.  Fasting  as  an  act  of  religion  belongs  to  the 
old  order  of  outwardness  and  routine,  not  to  the  new 
kingdom  of  the  spirit.  The  new  movement  of  life 
wants  other  forms  of  expression. 

The  two  parts  of  the  answer  fit  together  admirably. 
The  first  sets  fasting  in  its  proper  place  in  a  voluntary 
life  such  as  he  is  leading  men  into,  and  the  second 
expressly  claims  that  of  such  a  life  prescribed  fasting 
is  not  a  congruous  part.  If  a  man  feels  that  he  must 
fast  he  may  fast,  but  it  becomes  him  to  have  a  good 
reason  for  it.  And  he  could  not  better  illustrate  the 
great  principle  that  the  Christian  life  is  not  a  life  of 
response  to  legal  dictation.  Under  Jesus,  legislation 
is  not  the  method.  He  is  not  introducing  a  law. 
The  old  legislative  method  does  not  correspond  to 
his  free  spirit,  nor  would  it  be  competent  to  hold  his 
new  spiritual  power.  His  Hfe  is  the  life  of  the  spirit, 
and  liberty  of  spiritual  judgment  is  the  atmosphere  in 
which  it  must  have  its  being. 

Perhaps  Jesus  made  an  even  more  startling  decla- 
ration of  liberty  when  he   took  up   the   subject  of 


LIBERTY  191 

ceremonial  cleansings  and  defilements.  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  from  Jerusalem,  orthodox  of  the  orthodox, 
observed  that  his  disciples  omitted  the  washing  of 
their  hands  before  eating — a  washing  for  the  sake 
not  of  cleanliness,  but  of  acceptableness  to  cere- 
monial requirements.  Noticing  the  fact,  they  asked 
Jesus  to  explain  it.  Here  again  it  is  the  Master  who 
is  questioned  about  the  disciples,  not  the  disciples 
about  the  Master,  as  we  might  have  expected.  On 
this  point  of  legalism  also  they  must  have  begun  to 
change  their  practice  under  his  leading. 

In  his  first  answer  Jesus  calls  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  legal  tradition  that  requires  all  this  hand- 
washing is  not  from  God,  but  from  the  "elders,"  the 
men  of  old  time.  It  is  a  part  of  the  law  made  by 
interpretation.  It  is  a  sample,  he  says,  of  many  mat- 
ters in  which  the  legaHsts  have  frustrated  God's 
genuine  requirement  by  claiming  his  authority  for 
some  act  or  custom  that  he  has  not  required.  "Ye 
leave  the  commandment  of  God,  and  hold  fast  to 
the  tradition  of  men" — and  for  this  confounding  of 
things  that  differ,  this  mixing  of  human  with  divine, 
he  blames  them  bitterly.  Even  within  the  inherited 
law,  he  implies,  they  ought  to  discriminate,  and  keep 
God's  word  and  man's  apart.  Evidently  he  would 
insist  that  his  followers  should  be  free  at  least  from 
the  obligation  to  obey  the  human  additions  to  God's 
law.  This  was  as  bold  and  offensive  a  word  as  the 
word  about  fasting.  What  he  said  was  that  in  the 
law  which  all  the  orthodox  insisted  upon  there  was  a 
part  that  was  not  from  God,  and  that  it  was  the  duty 


192  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

of  teachers  of  the  law,  and  of  those  who  were  to  obey 
it,  to  discover  that  part  and  cease  to  hold  it  as  bind- 
ing. What!  criticise  the  ancient  and  accepted  law 
itself,  written  in  the  Scriptures,  and  exercise  moral 
judgment  upon  it,  and  cast  part  of  it  away  ?  But 
that  was  what  Jesus  was  insisting  on. 

But  he  is  not  content  with  this,  and  must  needs  go 
on  to  tell  what  he  thinks  of  the  principle  of  ceremonial 
defilement  itself,  quite  independently  of  its  relation 
to  the  divine  command.  Calling  the  people  around 
him,  he  proceeds  to  confirm  his  great  doctrine  of  lib- 
erty by  heretical  and  revolutionary  statements  of  the 
most  astonishing  kind. 

In  his  estimation  defilement  is  a  real  and  a  dread- 
ful thing,  and  he  wishes  his  hearers  to  be  right,  not 
wrong,  as  to  what  will  bring  it  on  them.  It  is  real, 
but  it  is  not  ceremonial.  To  the  people  he  gives  the 
gnomic  saying,  "Not  what  goes  into  a  man,  but  what 
comes  forth  from  him,  works  defilement  upon  him." 
When  his  disciples  ask  for  explanation  he  tells  them, 
in  effect,  that  whatever  the  law  may  say  about  clean 
and  unclean  foods,  there  is  nothing  in  it.  There  are 
no  clean  and  unclean  foods.  Food  cannot  defile. 
Food  simply  passes  through  the  body  and  is  gone. 
It  is  of  the  body  and  of  nothing  else,  and  having 
served  the  purposes  of  the  body  it  perishes.  The 
decisive  fact  is  that  it  "entereth  not  into  the  heart,*' 
the  seat  of  the  personal  moral  life,  for  which  reason 
it  is  nothing  at  all  to  the  real  man,  and  has  no  power 
to  defile  him.  When  real  defilement  occurs,  as  too 
often,  alas!  it  does,  the  heart  is  the  fountain  and  start- 


LIBERTY  193 

ing-point  of  It.  Out  of  the  heart,  the  inner  life,  comes 
forth  sin,  with  its  various  impurities  and  injustices 
and  evil  passions.  If  you  are  looking  for  defilement, 
look  not  to  food  but  to  living  evil  in  the  heart  for  the 
source  of  it.     You  will  surely  find  it  there. 

How  revolutionary  this  was,  we  in  our  Christian 
atmosphere  can  scarcely  imagine.  The  writer  of  the 
Second  Gospel,  rightly  perceiving  what  was  meant, 
added,  outside  of  all  grammatical  construction,  as  if 
in  meditative  amazement  or  else  in  a  triumphant 
sense  of  liberty,  "...  making  all  foods  clean!" — 
declaring  worthless  all  the  old  distinctions  between 
foods  that  defile  and  foods  that  do  not,  and  forever 
ending  ceremonial  embarrassments  as  to  what  one 
may  eat.  All  foods  are  free.  The  syllogism  is  very 
direct  and  conclusive:  The  heart  alone  is  the  source 
of  purity  or  impurity  before  God;  food  does  not 
affect  the  heart;  therefore  with  purity  or  impurity 
before  God  food  has  nothing  to  do.  The  same 
reasoning  would  apply  to  the  formal  necessity  for 
hand-washing,  and  to  all  supposed  defilements  under 
ceremonial  law.  They  are  all  relics  of  an  imme- 
morial unspiritual  faith,  which  makes  God  mindful  of 
a  thousand  external  matters.  But  Jesus'  principle 
is  that  only  the  spiritual  and  ethical  is  essential. 
If  it  is  said  that  this  is  perfectly  obvious,  we  must 
reply  that  it  is  very  far  from  being  obvious  every- 
where among  Christians  even  yet,  and  that  at  the 
time  when  Jesus  spoke  it  was  absolutely  heretical. 
Only  by  the  boldest  claim  of  intellectual  and  spiritual 
liberty  for  himself  could  Jesus  have  uttered  these 


194  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

words  at  all,  and  only  by  the  boldest  claim  of  practical 
liberty  for  men  as  men  could  he  have  given  this  forth 
as  a  principle  for  all  to  act  upon.  On  that  day  he 
avowed  for  all  time  the  position  that  the  spiritual  and 
ethical,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  that  is  formal,  external 
and  ceremonial,  is  the  sole  test  of  acceptableness  in 
the  sight  of  God 

From  another  point  of  view  Jesus  taught  the  lesson 
of  liberty  when  he  opened  to  his  followers  a  noble 
freedom  with  reference  to  the  use  that  they  should 
make  of  the  Sabbath  day.  The  disciples,  walking 
with  their  Master  on  the  Sabbath,  hungry,  helped 
themselves  to  handfuls  of  grain  in  the  field  as  they 
were  passing  through.  Thereupon  certain  Pharisees, 
observing  it,  charged  them  with  breaking  the  Sab- 
bath by  harvesting  and  rubbing  out  the  grain,  and 
asked  Jesus  about  it.  Yet  the  third  time  it  is  their 
conduct,  not  his,  that  is  called  in  question.  Their 
strictness  must  have  been  loosened  in  many  ways 
under  his  influence.  The  plain  impression  of  the 
record  is  that  they  took  the  grain  in  all  simplicity, 
just  because  they  wanted  it,  not  thinking  of  any  law. 

Jesus*  first  reply  is  a  reference  to  the  Scriptures, 
made  as  an  argumentum  ad  hominem.  He  cites 
from  the  life  of  David  a  ceremonial  irregularity  with 
regard  to  the  temple,  evidently  not  condemned  at  the 
time  of  it,  and  recorded  without  censure  in  the  Old 
Testament — as  much  as  to  intimate  that  a  rational 
interpretation  of  the  law  of  sacred  things  is  no  novelty, 
and  the  Pharisees  might  have  known  it.     But  his 


LIBERTY  195 

real  answer  strikes  to  the  heart  of  the  matter  by  going 
straight  to  the  nature  and  purpose  of  the  Sabbath 
itself.  What  is  this  Sabbath,  he  virtually  asks,  about 
which  your  scruples  know  no  limit  ?  and  what  does 
it  exist  for  ?  "The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  not 
man  for  the  Sabbath."  In  the  hard  and  merciless 
legalism  that  was  now  catechizing  the  disciples,  the 
Sabbath  was  treated  almost  as  if  it  were  an  end  in  it- 
self and  a  separate  object  of  devotion.  On  one  day 
in  seven  it  seemed  to  be  esteemed  the  one  thing  need- 
ful that  the  Sabbath  receive  no  detriment.  Legisla- 
tion was  strict,  interpretation  was  stricter,  and  the 
keen  watchfulness  of  the  guardians  of  the  law  was 
strictest  of  all.  The  result  was  that  man  was  made 
to  feel  that  this  sacred  institution  was  more  important 
far  than  he:  whatever  became  of  him  it  must  be 
honored,  and  he  must  almost  account  himself  to 
have  been  made  for  Sabbath-keeping.  But  this 
most  orthodox  position  Jesus  dares  to  withstand. 
The  rule  works  the  other  way.  The  Sabbath,  he 
declares,  was  made  for  human  benefit.  By  a  man 
himself  and  by  all  who  have  anything  to  do  with  the 
regulation  of  his  life  it  ought  to  be  treated  as  a  servant 
of  man,  not  as  his  master.  This  ought  to  be  the  rul- 
ing idea  of  the  entire  community.  No  law  has  a 
right  to  invert  this  relation  and  set  the  means  above 
the  end,  and  no  interpreters  of  the  ancient  law  have 
a  right  to  read  into  it  the  inverted  meaning.  If 
Jesus  were  expounding  the  matter  further,  of  course 
he  would  say  that  men  ought  to  use  the  Sabbath 
wisely,  not  recklessly,  not  selfishly,  or  irreligiously. 


196  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

or  unmindfully  of  him  who  gave  it.  Not  only  to  the 
benefit  but  to  the  best  benefit  of  man  ought  it  to  be 
devoted.  Only  a  high-minded  use  of  the  day  w^ould 
correspond  to  his  ideal,  and  all  the  stronger  is  his 
position  in  view  of  the  high  value  of  the  blessing. 
So  inexpressibly  valuable  a  servant  of  man  is  this, 
that  no  one  ought  to  deprive  him  of  its  service  by  set- 
ting it  up  as  his  master. 

What  use  Jesus  himself  made  of  this  freedom  with 
the  Sabbath  all  readers  know.  "The  Sabbath  was 
made  for  man"  might  be  called  his  motto.  He  per- 
formed public  acts  of  healing,  and  when  they  were 
challenged  by  legalists  he  defended  them  vigorously. 
The  meanness  of  the  opposition  to  such  healing  an- 
gered him,  and  once  is  recorded  his  indignation  as  he 
looked  round  upon  the  leaders  in  the  synagogue  who 
were  forbidding  him  to  make  more  of  man  than  of 
the  day.  He  declared  that  healing  on  the  Sabbath 
is  merely  such  work  as  men  do  for  their  cattle,  which 
they  will  feed  and  water  and  help  out  of  holes  on  the 
Sabbath.  How  much  more  appealing  ought  human 
needs  to  be  than  the  needs  of  an  ox  or  an  ass!  No 
sacred  law  or  custom  has  any  right  to  check  such  work. 
So  he  willingly  stood  as  a  violator  of  the  Sabbath  in 
the  estimation  of  Jews  who  perverted  the  law;  but 
he  claimed  that  in  what  they  called  profanation  of  the 
Sabbath  he  was  only  bringing  the  day  to  the  filful- 
ment  of  its  purpose.  According  to  the  report  in  the 
First  Gospel,  he  clinched  the  argument  in  defence  of 
the  men  who  plucked  grain  to  eat  on  the  Sabbath  by 
this  tremendous  argument  from  ancient  prophecy — 


LIBERTY  197 

"If  ye  had  known  what  this  means,  I  desire  mercy, 
and  not  sacrifice,  ye  would  not  have  condemned  the 
guiltless/*  God  long  ago  put  the  inward  above  the 
outward,  the  spiritual  above  the  formal,  likeness  to 
God  above  offering  to  God:  his  heart  was  set  upon 
the  ethical  grace  of  mercy,  not  upon  the  ceremonial 
act  of  sacrifice.  Because  these  religionists  had  failed 
to  see  this  vital  message  glowing  in  their  Scriptures, 
they  had  that  day  condemned  the  guiltless  and  called 
good  evil.  But  Jesus  himself  was  now  acting  upon 
that  ancient  divine  valuation,  and  opening  to  all  men 
the  liberty  to  prize  mercy  above  sacrifice,  the  end 
above  the  means,  the  work  of  life  above  the  methods 
of  life,  as  God  does. 

By  such  treatment  of  the  institutions  of  the  sacred 
law  Jesus  opened  to  men  a  fine  personal  independ- 
ence; or,  rather,  he  asserted  for  them  their  original 
right  of  liberty.  How  radical  he  was!  He  taught 
men  to  criticise  the  law  that  they  attributed  to  God. 
He  declared  null  the  principle  that  underlay  the  cere- 
monial system.  He  assigned  to  religious  institutions 
their  true  place  as  servants  of  man,  and  thus  taught 
men  to  seek  their  value  in  a  new  quarter.  He  pointed 
to  the  heart  as  the  sole  seat  of  that  which  is  accepta- 
ble or  unacceptable  to  God,  and  thus  bound  upon 
men  the  responsibility  of  taking  care  of  that  which  is 
within.  By  such  teaching  he  impressed  the  lesson 
that  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  a  thing  is  right  because 
it  is  commanded  in  the  law,  but  must  understand  that 
so  far  as  the  law  is  good  a  thing  is  commanded  in 


198  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

the  law  because  it  is  right.  As  an  appeal  to  the  con- 
science and  a  test  of  what  ought  to  be  done,  he  dis- 
tinctly deposes  the  force  of  legislation  from  the  first 
place  and  sets  above  it  the  value  of  the  law.  In  all 
this — and  perhaps  this  is  the  most  radical  teaching  of 
it  all — he  bids  men  freely  act  upon  their  own  judg- 
ment of  good  and  evil,  even  where  the  ancient  and 
sacred  law  has  spoken.  Even  to  bitter  opponents  he 
is  recorded  to  have  said,  "And  why  even  of  your  own 
selves  judge  ye  not  what  is  right  r'  In  morals  men 
can  judge,  have  a  right  to  judge,  and  ought  to  judge. 
Thus  he  sets  personal  judgment  free  from  prohibi- 
tions and  constraints;  and  the  right  of  judgment  is 
the  very  life  of  the  gift  of  liberty. 

In  fact,  just  as  the  writer  to  the  Hebrews  after- 
ward testified,  the  gospel  of  Jesus  brought  fulfilment 
of  the  prophetic  hope  of  a  new  covenant,  of  which 
one  great  characteristic  was  to  be  that  the  law  was 
written  on  the  heart.  We  have  seen  that  his  doctrine 
of  righteousness  was  simply  a  doctrine  of  reality: 
the  required  goodness  must  be  the  man's  own,  a 
quahty  of  his  very  being:  a  man  must  be  himself,  the 
self  being  a  good  one  toward  God  and  men.  God's 
requirement  must  be  not  an  external  authority  but 
an  inward  guide:  he  must  know  the  law  not  as  en- 
graved on  tables  of  stone  but  as  impressed  upon  his 
own  inward  affections  and  thus  made  his  own.  But 
one  of  the  conditions  of  inward  reality  is  liberty.  In 
order  to  be  himself,  a  man  must  be  free  to  be  himself. 
He  must  be  unhampered  by  false  authorities  and 
repressive  forces,  and  unrestrained  in  putting  forth 


LIBERTY  199 

his  best  in  thought  and  work.  Accordingly  we  do  not 
wonder  that  Jesus  preaches  Hberty  so  tremendously. 
Liberty  belongs  to  the  substance  of  his  ideal.  With- 
out it  his  ideal  man  can  never  exist.  With  it  there 
are  risks  and  dangers,  but  with  it  there  are  opened 
all  the  possibilities  of  high  virtue  and  godliness. 

Jesus  never  discussed  this  gift  of  liberty,  or  de- 
scribed it  at  all,  or  even  spoke  of  it  as  a  separate  fact. 
His  impartation  of  liberty  to  his  disciples  was  wholly 
practical  and  informal.  He  did  not  exhort  men  to 
be  free,  but  started  them  in  a  free  life.  Therefore  we 
should  look  in  vain  to  him  for  an  explicit  statement 
of  the  principle  in  which  Hberty  is  grounded.  But 
in  view  of  his  general  attitude  and  influence  the 
principle  is  perfectly  plain. 

His  view  of  liberty  is  a  direct  result  from  his  stead- 
fast conviction  of  the  relation  between  God  and  man. 
Jesus  always  assumes  that  there  is  only  one  above 
the  human  soul,  and  that  is  God,  the  Father  of  men. 
To  him  each  man  belongs,  and  has  access,  and  is 
responsible.  To  him  men  are  so  related  that  all  duty 
is  duty  to  him — though  not  to  him  alone — and  all 
life  is  life  under  his  paternal  authority.  Above  man 
there  is  no  other.  Between  any  human  being  and 
God  there  stands  no  one  whatever  with  any  binding 
authority  over  conscience  and  will.  Since  all  life  in 
its  higher  character,  ethical  and  religious,  is  a  matter 
between  man  and  his  God,  God  is  the  only  possible 
master  for  men,  and  filial  allegiance  to  him  implies 
release  and  freedom  from  all  others  who  claim  au- 


200  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

thority.  The  one  mastership  of  God  annihilates  all 
other  masterships.  Immediate  relations  with  God 
imply  emancipation  and  liberty  for  man.  This  is 
true  not  of  some  men  only  but  of  all,  since  God  is 
the  same  to  all,  and  all  are  bound  alike  to  him  by 
this  liberating  tie.  This  is  the  liberty  which  Jesus 
claimed  in  his  own  life.  The  high  aim  to  which  he 
held  so  firmly  was  the  aim  of  loyalty  to  God  alone, 
and  no  other  authority  over  him  did  he  acknowledge. 
This  too  is  the  liberty  which  he  proclaims  to  all  who 
learn  of  him.  He  thus  blesses  mankind  by  restor- 
ing to  every  man  an  essential  human  right  and  privi- 
lege, clearing  earth  and  heavens  of  all  intermeddlers 
who  would  come  between  man  and  his  God. 

Of  course  it  will  not  be  understood  that  the  claim 
of  his  fellows  upon  a  man  is  in  any  way  diminished 
by  this  sole  mastership  of  God.  No  man  liveth  unto 
himself,  or  has  a  moment's  right  to  think  that  human- 
ity has  no  claim  upon  him.  But  the  call  is  of  an- 
other kind;  and  it  is  as  a  free  spirit,  answerable  in 
the  higher  sense  to  his  God  alone,  that  a  man  is  called 
to  serve  his  fellows  and  fulfil  his  obligation  to  them. 

Neither  will  it  be  understood  that  the  sole  mas- 
tership of  God  is  incompatible  with  various  forms 
of  social  authority  that  exist  among  men.  Parents 
have  authority  over  their  children  for  a  certain  time 
and  within  a  certain  sphere,  and  governments  have 
authority  over  their  people  for  certain  purposes. 
But  such  authority  is  of  a  wholly  different  kind.  It 
rests  upon  relations  that  exist  among  human  beings 
themselves,  no  one  of  whom  has  naturally  anything 


LIBERTY  201 

of  the  higher  authority  over  another.  Thus  it  is 
differentiated  entirely  from  the  authority  of  God,  who 
is  himself  alone,  and  before  whom  all  men  stand  alike. 
Moreover,  it  is  valid  only  within  its  own  special 
field.  Within  a  certain  range  human  authority  has 
force,  but  it  does  not  extend  into  the  region  of  God's 
sole  mastership  to  rival  him.  When  it  endeavors 
to  invade  that  field  it  exceeds  its  rights  and  must  be 
ordered  back  where  it  belongs.  Human  authority 
has  often  claimed  to  represent  God  and  exercise  con- 
trol over  judgment  and  conscience  and  will,  but  never 
rightfully.  When  it  comes  to  a  matter  of  conscience, 
or  of  judgment  as  to  what  is  true,  or  of  the  exercise 
of  moral  choice,  there  is  only  one  way.  The  apostles 
were  right  when  they  deemed  it  sufficient  to  reply  to 
the  Sanhedrin,  "We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than 
men  " — by  which  they  meant,  as  they  ought  to  mean, 
"The  Sanhedrin  does  not  stand  between  us  and  God, 
and  we  owe  to  you  no  duty  at  all  in  this  matter." 
This  is  the  right  rule  for  all.  The  Christian  liberty 
is  freedom  from  all  masters  but  God. 

When  Jesus  proclaimed  the  emancipation  from 
human  mastership  which  is  implied  in  loyalty  to  God, 
he  gave  to  the  world  a  gift  of  priceless  value.  We 
have  to  confess  indeed  that  Christians  have  arisen 
to  this  liberty  onl}^  in  a  very  imperfect  way,  and  have 
often  been  sadly  false  to  the  principle  of  it  in  their 
treatment  of  one  another.  Very  largely  the  lesson 
has  still  to  be  learned.  Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  all 
defects,  Christian  liberty  has  done  in  the  world  a 


202  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

great  and  beneficent  work.  Many  souls  that  ac- 
knowledged God  have  found  themselves  set  free  from 
other  domination,  and  have  claimed  the  right  to  ig- 
nore all  interference  with  his  requirement.  In  such 
experience  the  fear  of  man  has  met  its  master,  and 
the  best  in  the  soul  has  come  to  its  own.  The  way 
has  been  opened  for  godliness  to  live  above  the  world 
in  a  higher  fidelity,  for  honest  thought  to  discover  and 
proclaim  truth  in  all  realms,  and  for  loyal  hearts  to 
do  the  will  of  God  without  reserve.  The  command, 
*'What  ye  have  heard  in  the  ear  proclaim  ye  upon  the 
housetops,"  has  become  a  rule  of  life,  and  the  whisper 
of  God  imparting  truth  has  been  fearlessly  trans- 
mitted to  the  world.  The  value  of  this  superhuman 
freedom  in  actual  accomplishment  of  good  for  man- 
kind is  past  all  computation,  while  its  force  by  way 
of  example,  inspiring  souls  in  bondage  to  come  forth 
into  the  glorious  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God,  has  been 
a  gift  almost  as  great.  Every  freeman  of  God  is  a 
missionary  of  freedom. 

It  is  worth  while  to  note  that  this  fine  liberty  of  the 
soul  is  not  only  an  ethical  gift  but  a  religious  gift 
as  well.  It  is  well  known  in  modern  times,  and 
is  increasingly  admired,  but  is  not  always  traced  to 
its  real  source.  The  finest  and  manliest  personal 
independence  of  our  age,  which  all  recognize  as  a 
part  of  the  ideal  manhood,  is  often  thought  of  as  a 
product  of  human  free  institutions.  Its  growth  is 
greatly  indebted  to  them,  but  in  a  deeper  sense  it 
is  the  offspring  of  loyalty  to  God,  which  abolishes 
all  spiritual  bondage  by  giving  the  human  spirit  only 


LIBERTY  203 

one  master.  It  is  Jesus  who  goes  to  the  heart  of  the 
matter  with  regard  to  Hberty.  Under  his  influence  it 
is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  gift  of  man  to  man,  or  a 
lesson  learned  in  a  human  school,  though  in  a  true 
sense  it  may  be  both  of  these.  He  grounds  it  in  re- 
ligion, by  making  the  soul's  loyalty  to  God  the  key 
to  its  freedom  from  domination  of  men.  Thus  for 
our  time  as  well  as  for  his  own  he  lays  in  religion 
the  deepest  foundation  of  one  of  the  great  ethical 
gifts.  Many  have  enjoyed  the  fruit  who  did  not 
recognize  the  nature  of  the  tree  on  which  it  grew; 
but  the  ideal  personal  liberty  is  a  result  of  loyalty 
to  God.  It  is  well  to  note  also  that  in  religion  Jesus 
here  offers  us  the  solution  of  a  great  social  problem. 
When  we  speak  of  liberty  we  speak  of  a  social 
fact,  and  the  question  of  liberty  is  a  social  question 
in  any  age,  for  it  is  a  question  of  what  men  really 
are  to  one  another,  and  in  what  manner  they  ought 
to  live  together.  It  is  an  inspiration  to  know  that 
Jesus  offers  the  solution  of  this  social  problem  not 
primarily  in  the  relation  of  men  to  one  another,  but 
in  the  relation  of  all  of  them  to  God.  This  surely  is 
the  ideal  way.  The  heavens  rule.  God,  not  man, 
is  the  key  of  life. 


X 

HUMAN  VALUE 

The  farther  we  go  into  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  the 
more  does  the  great  social  question  open  about  us  on 
every  side.  Plainer  and  plainer  it  grows  that  his 
ideal  was  a  social  ideal.  We  may  enter  the  kingdom 
of  God  by  the  individual  door,  but  the  kingdom  itself 
is  a  social  realm,  where  the  question  of  what  man 
should  do  toward  man  requires  the  heartfelt  atten- 
tion of  every  citizen.  We  need  not  wonder,  there- 
fore, but  should  be  most  thankful,  that  the  counsels 
of  the  Master  extend  their  application  till  they  cover 
the  whole  social  field. 

One  of  the  most  far-reaching  of  ethical  questions 
is  that  of  the  value  of  a  human  being.  How  high 
an  estimate  ought  to  be  put  upon  a  man,  simply  as 
a  man,  or  upon  a  child  as  a  potential  man  .?  Of 
how  much  worth  is  a  human  being  ^  How  ought  one 
to  regard  his  own  value  ^  and  what  valuation  ought 
men  to  put  upon  one  another  ^  According  to  their 
mutual  estimate  will  be  their  treatment  of  one  an- 
other; and  in  the  history  of  the  race  it  has  become 
only  too  plain  that  to  misjudge  human  value  is  a 
sadly  dangerous  thing.  We  may  never  take  the  ques- 
tion of  human  value  to  heart,  or  we  may  think  too 
meanly  of  our  fellows,  or  we  may  prize  them  highly, 

204 


HUMAN  VALUE  205 

and  these  judgments  will  have  large  social  effects 
and  immeasurable  importance.  These  are  vast  eth- 
ical questions,  and  in  proportion  as  we  are  ac- 
quainted with  the  living  God  we  shall  call  them 
religious  questions  also. 

In  a  variety  of  ways  Jesus  teaches  us  what  a  human 
being  is  worth,  and  how  we  ought  to  estimate  men. 
Here  again  some  words  that  we  have  already  studied 
will  be  found  yielding  an  additional  lesson,  and  it  will 
not  be  a  loss  of  time  to  draw  it  out. 

He  calls  attention  more  than  once  to  the  value  of 
men  in  comparison  with  lower  creatures.  The  grass 
of  the  field,  the  lilies,  the  birds,  the  ox,  the  ass,  the 
sheep,  he  brings  into  comparison.  For  all  these  he 
says  that  God  cares,  and  how  much  more  for  men! 
Men  care  for  their  animals  too,  and  will  take  great 
pains  to  supply  their  wants  and  get  them  out  of  dan- 
ger. Hard-hearted  religionists  around  him  he  begs 
to  take  as  much  interest  in  the  welfare  of  men  as 
they  take  in  the  care  of  their  cattle — and  he  begs  in 
vain.  The  lesson  as  he  gives  it  is,  "God  cares  for 
these — the  sheep,  the  sparrows,  even  the  flowers — 
and  how  much  more  valuable  is  a  man  than  a  sheep! 
God  recognizes  the  greater  human  value,  and  so 
should  you."  To  our  eyes  as  we  read  it  this  may 
seem  like  very  rudimentary  teaching,  and  an  ex- 
tremely rudimentary  standard  of  human  value,  too 
obvious  to  be  of  any  practical  worth.  But  hard  ex- 
perience proves  that  in  teaching  humanity  to  man 
rudimentary  lessons  are  far  from  superfluous.  Even 
yet   they    are   needed.     Many    a    man's    employees 


206  THE  IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

would  be  thankful  for  such  consideration  as  he  gives 
his  horses,  and  many  a  man's  family  is  housed  worse 
than  his  animals.  And  very  beautiful  and  cheering 
is  this  teaching  of  Jesus  concerning  the  fatherly  heart 
of  God,  who  rightly  estimates  the  value  of  all  living 
creatures  and  holds  his  human  children  precious 
above  the  rest. 

The  teachings  that  illustrate  liberty  throw  equal 
light  upon  human  value.  When  he  compares  men 
with  sacred  institutions,  and  relegates  the  temple 
and  the  Sabbath  to  their  true  position  as  servants  of 
humanity,  Jesus  places  high  honor  upon  man.  He 
quotes,  "My  house  shall  be  called  a  house  of  prayer 
for  all  nations'*;  the  temple  then,  often  accounted 
sacred  for  its  own  sake,  was  intended  to  be  a  servant 
to  mankind,  both  Jew  and  Gentile;  wherever  man  is, 
therefore,  there  is  something  greater  than  the  temple. 
How  he  sets  man  above  the  Sabbath  by  saying,  "The 
Sabbath  was  made  for  man,"  we  have  already  seen; 
and  he  does  not  hesitate  to  put  this  word  into  personal 
application.  "Ought  not  this  daughter  of  Abraham 
...  to  be  healed  on  the  Sabbath  day  V  She  is  the 
more  important.  As  the  sanctity  of  the  showbread 
did  not  stand  in  the  way  of  satisfying  David's  hunger, 
so  that  of  the  Sabbath  must  be  no  bar  to  usefulness 
toward  men,  for  whom  it  was  made.  Since  man  is 
the  being  for  whose  good  God  made  all  holy  institu- 
tions, in  his  sight  he  ranks  above  them  all.  This  is 
not  represented  merely  as  Jesus'  personal  judgment. 
He  records  it  as  the  judgment  of  God,  expressed  in 
his  preparing  of  the  holy  institutions  for  the  service 


HUMAN   VALUE  207 

of  man.  In  God's  judgment  the  end  ranks  above 
the  means. 

The  three  great  Parables  of  Recovery,  v^hich  have 
taught  us  so  much  about  the  divine  love,  convey  also 
the  clearest  of  lessons  concerning  human  value. 
In  these  three  parables  of  "the  lost  found,"  which 
declare  with  ascending  emphasis  that  it  was  right 
for  Jesus  to  welcome  as  he  did  the  publicans  and 
sinners,  the  worth  of  a  human  being  shines  forth. 
Why  was  it  a  good  thing  for  these  men  and  women 
to  come  to  him  seeking  a  better  life  .?  and  why  should 
they  be  welcomed  I  Because  of  what  they  were 
worth.  They  were  worth  saving  for  their  own  sake, 
and  they  bore  a  real  value  to  God,  whose  they  were. 
Because  of  the  saving  of  this  intrinsic  value,  as  well 
as  because  of  the  victory  of  the  divine  love,  is  there 
"joy  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth." 
The  scorning  of  such  by  the  Pharisees  is  represented 
in  the  parable  by  the  elder  brother's  name  for  the 
prodigal,  "This  thy  son,  which  hath  devoured  thy 
Hving  with  harlots.''  But  the  father's  name  for  him 
is,  "This  thy  brother." 

We  do  not  find  Jesus  calling  attention  to  his  own 
sense  of  human  value,  but  his  life  showed  it  in  many 
ways.  His  disciples  apparently  thought  that  little 
children  brought  to  him  for  his  blessing  were  too 
insignificant  to  hold  his  attention,  but  he  rebuked 
their  unwelcoming  spirit,  and  received  the  children 
with  warmest  interest.  When  he  was  asked  why  he 
companied  with  sinners,  he  replied  that  he  was  a 
physician,  and  these  were  the  ones  who  had  need  of 


208  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

him.  As  a  physician  of  course  he  must  go  to  his 
patients,  and  he  went  freely  and  gladly,  never  ques- 
tioning that  they  were  worth  all  the  pains  that  he 
took  for  them.  That  sinful  men  were  not  important 
enough  for  him  to  serve  them  with  full  devotion  never 
occurred  to  him.  It  was  by  way  of  comment  upon 
his  one  day's  work  with  Zacchaeus  the  publican 
that  he  uttered  the  immortal  saying,  **The  Son  of 
man  is  come  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost." 
That  which  is  lost,  he  implies,  is  worth  seeking  and 
saving:  men  are  precious.  If  Zacchaeus  had  not 
responded  to  his  search  on  that  first  day,  it  is  hard  to 
think  that  he  would  not  gladly  have  given  him  a 
second.  His  own  ideal  was  to  seek  the  lost  "until 
he  find  it" — the  only  satisfactory  way.  Most  em- 
phatically again  did  he  tell  of  human  value  when  he 
said,  "The  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered 
unto  but  to  minister,  and  to  give  his  Hfe  a  ransom 
for  many."  Not  for  himself  would  he  live  and  die, 
but  for  men,  and  it  was  worth  while.  We  may  think 
that  he  said  this  because  "not  for  self"  is  the  right 
principle  for  life  and  death;  and  so  he  did.  But 
if  the  objects  of  his  unselfish  sacrifice  had  not  ap- 
pealed to  him  as  worth  the  cost,  he  would  not  thus 
have  given  himself  for  them.  His  self-sacrifice  even 
unto  death  was  his  measure  of  the  value  of  the  men 
for  whom  he  gave  himself.  The  cross  bears  testi- 
mony to  what  he  felt  humanity  to  be  worth.  From 
this  high  judgment  of  human  value  he  never  swerved. 
He  had  his  moments  of  impatience  with  the  slowness 
of  the  response — "How  long  shall  I  be  with  you  .^ 


HUMAN  VALUE  209 

how  long  shall  I  suffer  you?" — but  neither  by  the  hard 
way  to  the  cross  nor  by  the  agony  of  the  cross  itself 
was  he  turned  from  the  conviction  that  men  were 
worth  the  sacrifice.  Even  in  the  hour  of  death  his 
murderers  were  still  to  be  prayed  for. 

Another  light  upon  human  value  is  given  in  Jesus' 
suggestion  of  the  value  of  a  man  to  himself.  A  man 
is  worth  more  to  himself  than  all  the  world  can  be 
worth  to  him.  To  gain  the  whole  world  would  be 
no  gain  If  he  lost  himself  in  the  transaction.  If  a 
man  has  thus  lost  himself,  there  Is  nothing  in  all  that 
he  possesses,  even  if  he  has  gained  the  world,  that  is 
valuable  enough  for  him  to  "give  In  exchange  for  his 
soul,"  to  buy  himself  back  again.  "What  shall  It 
profit  a  man"  to  have  made  such  a  bargain  .?  In  the 
parable  of  the  foolish  rich  man,  the  moral  is  that 
"a  man's  life  consisteth  not  in  the  abundance  of  the 
things  that  he  possesseth."  Nearer  home  than  that 
must  he  look  for  that  which  counts.  It  was  when 
God  required  of  him  his  soul  that  his  trouble  came. 
He  himself  was  the  centre  of  interest  then,  and  all 
his  wealth,  prized  for  the  comfort  It  was  to  bring 
him,  was  nothing  worth.  If  he  could  not  stand  up 
to  meet  this  last  call  of  God,  all  was  failure. 

Very  suggestive  concerning  a  man's  real  value  are 
the  words  in  which  Jesus  tells  how  alone  this  value 
can  be  realized  or  conserved.  They  are  paradoxical 
and  searching.  Self-seeking  will  prove  a  disappoint- 
ment. "Whosoever  would  save  his  life  shall  lose 
it,  and  whosoever  shall  lose  his  life  for  my  sake  shall 
save  It."     A  man  Is  precious  in  a  mystery,  and  only 


210  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

a  deep  experience  can  bring  the  mystery  to  light. 
He  must  die  to  live.  He  can  make  himself  of  full 
value  only  by  letting  himself  go  in  self-forgetful  con- 
secration. Only  by  the  sweet  though  costly  rule  of 
self-sacrifice  can  his  value  be  fully  realized.  It  will 
be  wrecked  and  lost  if  he  follows  the  selfish  method. 
Only  when  he  surrenders  himself  to  the  holy  cause — 
"for  my  sake,"  for  that  which  I  stand  for — can  he 
come  into  true  possession  of  himself.  If  man  were 
a  being  who  could  secure  his  own  value  by  making 
it  his  end,  this  would  be  a  very  different  world  from 
what  it  is.  It  might  be  more  attractive  to  the  or- 
dinary soul,  but  heaven  could  not  be  brought  into  it. 
But  the  actual  law  of  life  is  the  law  of  surrender. 
So  in  the  case  of  Jesus  himself:  "Except  a  grain  of 
wheat  fall  into  the  ground  and  die,  it  abideth  alone; 
but  if  it  die  it  bringeth  forth  much  fruit."  The  value 
of  a  spiritual  being  resides  not  merely  in  itself,  but 
even  more  in  what  it  brings  forth.  So  even  of  God. 
If  he  were  a  selfish  seeker  of  his  own  glory,  he  would 
have  no  glory.  Of  this  paradoxical  and  yet  rational 
nature  is  the  value  of  a  spiritual  being,  and  therefore 
of  a  man. 

Jesus  did  not  represent  value  as  belonging  to  a 
few  men  only,  or  to  some  special  class  alone.  He 
would  never  lead  us  to  think  that  God  prizes  merely 
the  select  few,  the  finest  spirits  of  the  human  ract. 
He  encourages  none  to  think  themselves  God's  fa- 
vorites. He  saw  the  worth  of  despised  men,  and 
brought  out  undiscovered  values.  Men  are  unequal 
in  many  respects,  and  of  unequal  value  for  many  pur- 


HUMAN  VALUE  211 

poses,  but  Jesus  assures  us  that  they  are  all  precious 
to  God,  who  counts  them  his  own,  sees  their  possibili- 
ties, and  prizes  them  for  what  there  is  in  them.  The 
parables  of  recovery  do  not  point  a  limited  or  tem- 
porary lesson.  They  show  how  everywhere  and  al- 
ways God  rejoices  when  the  value  of  the  human 
comes  back  to  him.  Accordingly  the  lesson  of  the 
value  of  man  as  man,  and  so  of  all  men,  remains  in 
the  world  as  an  element  in  the  ideal  of  Christianity. 
It  is  needless  to  confess  that  this  lesson  has  barely 
begun  to  be  learned  and  practised  in  its  full  meaning, 
and  yet  it  is  true  that  the  Christian  era  is  the  human 
era,  the  age  of  man.  Despite  the  terrible  defects  and 
wrongs  that  still  remain,  with  Jesus  there  has  come 
a  sense  of  human  value  such  as  the  world  has  not 
known  elsewhere;  and  when  we  obtain  a  glimpse  of 
Jesus  himself  we  do  not  wonder. 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  in  proportion  as  Jesus  becomes 
influential  in  the  world,  the  sense  of  the  value  of  man 
will  be  increased.  Of  course,  too,  the  law  of  human 
value  cannot  stand  as  a  mere  formula  or  an  abstract 
estimate.  It  must  have  applications  of  vast  impor- 
tance. It  is  a  law  of  self-respect.  We  do  not  hear 
Jesus  speaking  of  this,  but  he  taught  the  lesson  as 
no  one  else  has  done,  and  has  inspired  a  self-respect 
that  may  almost  be  called  a  Christian  grace.  Since  a 
man  is  so  precious,  every  human  being  ought  to  re- 
spect and  even  to  reverence  himself,  and  to  attend  to 
his  own  higher  duties  and  interests  in  a  manner  that 
corresponds  to  his  value.     It  is  not  self-conceit  that 


212  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

says,  "Because  God  prizes  me  I  will  prize  myself." 
And  of  course  the  law  of  human  value  is  a  law  of 
respect  and  reverence  toward  other  men.  It  should 
be  this  to  every  one  who  looks  his  brother  in  the  face. 
We  sin  against  our  fellows,  and  against  God  who 
prizes  them,  if  we  do  not  treat  them  all  as  beings  of 
high  worth.  As  an  ideal  for  life,  Jesus  made  this 
absolutely  plain;  and  yet  how  slow  are  even  the  best 
to  make  application  of  it,  or  even  to  perceive  that 
application  must  be  made!  And  society  in  general 
has  obtained  only  faint  glimpses  of  this  ideal. 

It  is  impossible  to  discuss  here  the  applications  of 
the  law  of  human  value,  but  the  nature  of  them  is 
plain.  The  law  is  both  destructive  and  constructive. 
It  tears  down  and  it  builds  up.  Give  it  its  way  and 
it  tears  down  all  that  belittles  man  and  treats  him  as 
of  small  account.  It  seals  the  doom  of  tyranny  in 
government.  It  condemns  all  social  tyrannies  and 
oppressions,  and  all  institutions  that  deal  with  human 
beings  without  high  consideration  of  their  worth. 
All  scorn  and  contempt  of  men,  even  of  evil  men,  it 
would  abolish.  All  practices  that  embody  contempt 
or  indifference  toward  men  it  would  doom  to  blasting, 
unless  they  change  their  tone.  And  in  the  place  of 
tyranny  and  contempt  and  wrong,  it  would  bring  in 
an  order  of  large  and  equal  justice,  of  fraternal  sym- 
pathy and  helpfulness,  and  of  equal  opportunity. 
A  social  order  that  corresponds  to  the  Christian  ideal 
of  human  value  is  the  order  for  which  human  welfare 
waits.  The  form  of  it  may  not  be  foreseen,  but  the 
spirit  of  it  is  as  plain  as  the  character  of  Jesus  himself. 


HUMAN  VALUE  213 

Here  we  may  remind  ourselves  how  perfectly  the 
ideal  of  human  value  fits  in  with  Jesus'  ideal  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  There  he  showed  us  an  order 
inspired  by  the  spirit  of  mutual  help  and  service. 
Here  he  points  us  to  the  companions  whom  we  are 
called  to  serve  and  help,  and  bids  us  see  how  well 
worthy  they  are  of  all  that  we  can  do  for  them.  In 
a  world  of  human  value  the  life  of  mutual  service 
is  the  normal  life,  and  the  redemptive  love  of  God  is 
the  right  spirit  to  inspire  all  living. 

Jesus  could  not  discuss  the  problems  of  our  time 
in  his,  and  so  he  has  not  given  us  specific  directions 
what  to  do  in  view  of  human  value.  We  must  find 
out  for  ourselves  what  we  need  to  unlearn  and  repu- 
diate, and  what  new  works  of  social  righteousness 
we  must  learn  to  do.  The  time  has  come  when  we 
ought  to  be  learning,  for  the  vast  social  issues  have 
arisen,  a  Christian  people  has  grown  up  that  ought 
to  be  capable  of  deahng  with  them,  and  every  day 
is  clamoring  more  loudly  than  the  last  for  attention 
to  the  claims  of  hum.an  value.  There  is  no  more 
vital  question.  Industrialism  is  wellnigh  omnipotent 
now,  and  industrialism  knows  little  of  large  intrinsic 
value  in  human  beings.  It  recognizes  their  value 
only  for  some  single  purpose,  in  which  they  may 
serve  the  interest  of  those  who  exploit  them.  A 
man  comes  to  be  called  a  hand.  Life  comes  to  be 
organized  without  reference  to  the  intrinsic  value  of 
human  beings  who  cannot  organize  it  for  themselves. 
The  money-making  impulse  is  the  organizer,  and  the 
money-making  impulse   is   always   ready  to   utilize 


214  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

men  as  means  to  its  end,  whatever  other  values  in 
them  it  may  destroy.  In  dealing  with  human  beings 
the  Master's  word  is  true,  "Ye  cannot  serve  God  and 
Mammon."  To  serve  God  is  to  deal  with  all  that 
is  human  as  worthful  and  honorable  in  itself  and 
for  its  own  sake:  to  serve  Mammon  is  to  ignore 
the  higher  values  and  trample  them  under  foot.  A 
Mammon-worshipping  generation  invokes  the  curse 
of  God  by  its  contempt  of  humanity. 

The  significance  of  the  present  social  strifes  turns 
more  upon  the  question  of  human  value  than  upon 
almost  any  other.  Human  value  and  selfish  interest 
are  in  a  death-grapple,  and  the  thing  needful  to  a 
righteous  outcome  is  that  the  voice  of  Jesus  be  heard. 
Evidently  the  contest  will  be  long.  The  work  of 
righteousness  in  making  adjustment  must  needs  be 
slow,  and  will  require  the  utmost  wisdom  and  pa- 
tience. Selfishness  will  propose  all  manner  of  injus- 
tice; and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  worth  of  men  is 
sure  to  be  asserted  sometimes  in  unwise  ways,  so 
that  interest  in  its  righteous  claim  will  be  discouraged 
through  mistakes.  But  it  is  indispensable  to  a  good 
future  that  the  Christian  ideal  of  human  value  be 
kept  in  sight,  and  taken  to  heart,  and  held  as  the 
guiding  hght  in  all  social  changes.  Only  thus  can 
the  true  ideal  of  society  be  reached,  or  even  ap- 
proached. The  practice  of  human  value  is  essential 
to  the  fulfilment  of  the  hope  of  the  world. 


XI 

JUSTICE 

Very  close  to  the  ideal  of  human  value  lies  that  of 
justice.  In  one  aspect,  indeed,  the  claim  of  human 
value  is  a  claim  of  justice:  men  have  certain  claims 
on  one  another  by  reason  of  their  worth,  and  justice 
demands  that  they  be  honored.  But  besides,  in  all 
human  affairs  there  is  such  a  thing  as  reciprocity — 
give  and  take — and  there  is  a  way  of  exercising  this 
reciprocity  that  is  just  and  equal,  corresponding 
rightly  to  the  conditions.  There  can  be  no  definition 
of  justice  that  will  make  plain  what  is  just  in  every 
particular  case;  it  is  the  task  of  every  person,  and  of 
society,  to  study  that  out,  and  to  act  upon  the  con- 
clusions that  may  be  reached.  But  it  does  not  fol- 
low from  this  seeming  indefiniteness  that  justice  is 
a  vague  and  uncertain  thing.  The  principle  is  per- 
fectly clear.  Justice  is  that  which  is  due  according 
to  the  claim  of  right.  It  is  a  mere  repetition  to  say 
that  the  doing  of  justice  is  every  one's  duty. 

In  our  day  one  who  emphasizes  justice  is  apt  to 
dwell  much  on  the  rights  of  man,  or  of  men;  for  in 
recent  centuries  the  assertion  of  justice  has  largely 
been  identified  with  the  assertion  of  rights.  But 
perhaps  to  our  surprise  we  find  that  of  the  rights  of 
men  Jesus  did  not  speak.     His  principles  may  lead 

215 


216  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

to  assertions  about  rights,  but  he  made  none.  In 
this  omission  he  made  no  mistake,  for  that  was  not 
the  message  for  the  hour.  If  he  had  stood  forth  as 
a  herald  of  human  rights,  he  would  have  missed  the 
point  of  his  mission.  He  was  not  in  the  world  for 
immediate  social  reform.  He  was  to  create  a  force 
that  would  work  reform  in  its  season,  but  its  season 
would  be  long  in  coming,  and  the  work  of  his  lifetime 
was  of  another  kind.  But  apart  from  such  consider- 
ation, agitation  for  human  rights  was  not  the  most 
natural  thing  from  his  own  point  of  view.  To  him 
duties,  not  rights,  were  of  first  importance.  Not 
"What  can  I  claim  ?*'  but  "What  do  I  owe  ?"  is  the 
first  question  for  a  right  mind  to  ask.  It  was  charac- 
teristic of  Jesus  that  he  inspired  men  to  do  justice 
before  he  moved  them  to  demand  it. 

His  largest  teaching  upon  justice,  as  well  as  the 
clearest  illustration  of  the  judgment  that  has  just 
been  cited,  is  found  in  the  law  that  he  announced 
when  he  said,  "All  things  whatsoever  ye  would  that 
men  should  do,  do  ye  even  so  unto  them;  for  this 
is  the  law  and  the  prophets." 

This  word  is  commonly  known  as  the  golden  rule, 
and  the  name  is  well  deserved.  In  the  popular 
thought  it  probably  passes  oftenest  for  a  law  of  love, 
but  as  soon  as  we  examine  it  it  appears  as  a  law  of 
justice.  It  recognizes  that  two  sets  of  requirements 
are  present,  and  bids  me  equalize  them.  I  wish 
another  to  treat  me  in  a  certain  way  or  in  a  certain 
spirit.     But  he  has  the  same  claim  upon  me  that  I 


JUSTICE  217 

have  upon  him,  and  his  claim  I  ought  to  acknowledge. 
What  I  desire  from  him  he  has  an  equal  right  to  de- 
sire from  me,  and  it  is  only  just  that  I  give  to  him 
such  as  I  ask  from  him.  The  rule  takes  two  forms. 
Negatively,  I  ought  not  to  do  to  him  what  I  wish  him 
not  to  do  to  me,  and  positively,  I  ought  to  do  to  him 
what  I  wish  done  to  myself.  The  two  requirements 
may  or  may  not  coincide  in  precise  detail,  but  they 
entirely  coincide  in  spirit.  Plainly  this  is  the  right- 
eous and  equal  rule  for  the  management  of  that 
reciprocity  which  enters  into  all  human  relations — 
give  as  you  would  receive,  do  as  you  would  be  done 
by.  In  order  to  do  this  satisfactorily  it  may  be  found 
that  love  is  indispensable,  but  the  claim  springs 
primarily  not  from  love  but  from  justice.  The  law 
calls  only  for  what  is  equal,  fair,  right,  just:  it  ought 
to  be  fulfilled.  It  is  well  called  a  golden  rule,  for  it 
is  a  rule  of  righteousness.  In  so  far  as  it  is  ignored, 
there  can  be  no  effective  righteousness  between  man 
and  man,  and  no  sufficient  rightness  in  personal 
character. 

Jesus  adds  at  once  that  this  is  no  new  rule,  and  he 
lays  no  claim  to  it  as  a  rule  of  his  own.  "This  is  the 
law  and  the  prophets."  It  is  older  than  Jesus,  and 
had  authority  before  he  uttered  it.  It  is  not  found 
in  the  Old  Testament  in  so  many  words,  but  he  bears 
witness  that  it  represents  the  spirit  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  both  law  and  prophecy.  Modern  readers  can 
trace  it  further  still.  It  is  found,  more  or  less  clearly, 
in  the  ethical  teachings  of  various  peoples.  Confucius 
has  it,  both  in  the  negative  form  and  in  the  positive. 


218  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

The  Buddha  has  it,  and  so  have  various  other  teach- 
ers. That  is  no  objection  to  it  as  a  Christian  law, 
as  some  Christians  have  suspected  that  they  ought 
to  feel,  but  a  strong  commendation.  The  golden 
rule  cannot  be  a  specialty  of  any  teacher  or  religion. 
It  exists  so  v^idely  because  it  is  a  law  of  universal 
right.  It  has  been  proved  the  right  rule  of  conduct, 
and  universal  experience  commends  it.  So  far  as 
men  have  learned  to  use  good  judgment  in  their  life, 
*'Do  as  you  would  be  done  by"  is  recognized  the 
world  over  as  the  natural  and  reasonable  rule  of  duty. 
It  is  almost  an  axiomatic  law.  Of  course  it  is  far 
from  being  universally  practised,  for  passion  is  blind 
to  it,  and  pride  ignores  it,  and  selfishness  forgets  it 
or  denies  it,  and  innumerable  interests  argue  it  im- 
practicable. But  it  points  out  the  ideal  way  to  live, 
and  the  ideal  of  human  society  cannot  be  attained 
without  it;  and  to  this  effect  the  sober  judgment  of 
the  world  bears  witness. 

A  searching  illustration  of  this  law  as  a  law  of 
justice  is  given  by  Jesus  in  the  parable  of  the  un- 
forgiving servant.  From  pure  kindness  a  servant 
has  been  forgiven  a  vast  debt  that  he  owed  his  mas- 
ter; but  when  a  fellow-servant  begs  him  to  forgive 
a  trifling  debt  under  identical  conditions,  he  stub- 
bornly refuses.  The  argument  of  the  parable  is  that 
it  was  the  duty  of  the  servant  to  exercise  the  same 
pardon  that  he  himself  had  pleaded  for  and  received. 
The  main  appeal  is  not  made  to  love  or  to  compas- 
sion: it  is  represented  that  forgiveness  was  simply 
his  duty,  and  that  he  sinned  against  justice  in  refusing 


JUSTICE  219 

to  forgive  as  he  had  been  forgiven.  He  might  claim 
that  the  debt  was  justly  due  to  him;  but  the  parable 
hints  that  justice  had  taken  on  a  new  form  since  he 
had  been  forgiven,  and  demanded  of  him  forgiveness. 
The  only  allusion  to  mercy  affirms  mercy  as  a  duty 
in  his  case:  **Oughtest  thou  not  to  have  had  mercy 
upon  thy  fellow-servant,  even  as  I  had  mercy  on 
thee.^'*  How  utterly  wrong,  unjust,  subversive  of 
social  right  for  the  servant  to  refuse  such  a  boon  as 
had  just  been  freely  given  to  him!  No  human  law 
can  enforce  this  claim,  though  in  the  parable  the 
master  does  proceed  to  enforce  it,  since  he  figures 
as  the  representative  of  God.  But  that  makes  no 
difference:  a  man  is  bound  to  do  to  others  as  he 
desires  others  to  do  to  him.  The  parable  is  the  more 
interesting  because  it  illustrates  the  claim  for  some- 
thing different  from  mere  reciprocity.  A  third  per- 
son comes  in.  The  servant  is  not  called  upon  to 
treat  his  master  as  his  master  has  treated  him,  but 
to  treat  his  fellow-servant  so.  The  second  man  is 
told  that  it  was  his  duty  to  do  to  the  third  as  the  first 
had  done  to  him.  By  this  the  golden  rule  is  laid 
down  as  a  law  to  govern  all  social  relations,  for  this 
is  the  teaching — "Treat  every  one  as  any  one  has 
treated  you  for  your  good."  What  a  revelation  is 
this!     What  a  new  thing  it  w5uld  make  of  life! 

This  illustration  of  the  law  of  justice  is  all  the  more 
searching  because  it  represents  that  law  as  penetrat- 
ing to  a  region  where  love  alone  is  often  regarded  as 
influential.  What  but  love,  we  might  ask,  has  any- 
thing to  do  with  the  forgiveness  of  injuries  .?     Yet  the 


220  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

parable  justifies  itself.  An  unforgiving  spirit  grieves 
righteousness  as  deeply  as  it  injures  love.  If  par- 
don is  the  gift  that  we  desire,  pardon  is  the  gift  that 
justice  requires  us  to  impart. 

Jesus  makes  another  application  of  the  law  of 
justice,  and  of  the  principle  of  the  golden  rule,  in 
what  he  says  of  the  judgment  that  men  should  pass 
on  one  another.  **  Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged." 
In  this  teaching  there  is  nothing  that  is  peculiar  to 
Christianity:  any  moralist  might  have  said  the  same, 
for  the  teaching  is  obvious.  Yet  none  the  less  truly 
is  it  characteristic  of  Jesus  and  suited  to  stand  among 
his  instructions.  That  which  it  requires  enters  into 
his  ideal  of  how  men  ought  to  live  together.  If  it 
had  stood  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  below  the 
golden  rule  instead  of  above  it,  we  should  have  said 
that  he  meant  it  for  an  illustration  of  that  law,  and 
should  have  called  it  a  very  good  one.  The  point  is 
simply  that  all  such  judgment  should  be  avoided  as 
one  would  be  unwilling  to  have  returned  upon  him- 
self. "With  what  judgment  ye  judge,  ye  shall  be 
judged,"  by  men  around  you;  therefore  be  careful, 
and  give  only  such  as  you  would  be  willing  to  take. 

If  we  ask  what  particular  kind  of  judgment  is  thus 
ruled  out,  we  find  that  he  does  not  tell  us,  but  leaves 
us  to  find  out  for  ourselves.  He  has  given  us  the 
text,  but  has  not  filled  out  the  sermon.  But  the  ser- 
mon is  easily  constructed.  It  is  plain  that  on  these 
terms  we  should  have  to  avoid  all  rash  and  hasty 
judgment,  made  before  we  had  good  knowledge  of 


JUSTICE  221 

the  facts;  and  all  harsh,  censorious,  unloving  judg- 
ment, needlessly  condemnatory;  and,  no  less,  all  fool- 
ish overappreciation,  unreasoned  and  flattering.  So 
much  at  least.  The  mind  of  Christ  should  lead  us 
to  fair  judgment,  grounded  in  the  best  reasons  that  lie 
within  our  reach  and  tempered  by  love.  We  are  re- 
minded that  in  such  a  world  of  give  and  take  as  this, 
injustice  in  judgment  will  be  visited  upon  the  unjust 
judge.  Righteous  judgment  is  always  a  duty,  but 
the  exhortation  to  it  is  based  on  this  other  ground 
besides,  that  one's  manners  have  a  right  to  come 
home  to  hght  upon  one's  self,  and  may  be  trusted  to 
do  it. 

As  to  the  use  that  Jesus  would  have  us  make  of 
this  rule  of  just  judgment,  it  has  sometimes  been 
supposed  that  he  was  forbidding  all  judgment  upon 
persons,  and  permitting  it  only  upon  acts  and  prin- 
ciples: men  may  judge  the  sin  but  not  the  sinner, 
the  fault  but  not  the  man,  all  judgment  upon  per- 
sons being  reserved  to  God.  But  this  cannot  be  the 
meaning.  Jesus  himself  in  the  same  chapter  passes 
judgment  on  the  false  prophets,  and  tells  his  hearers 
how  to  do  the  same.  They  are  to  **  beware  of  false 
prophets,"  but  how  can  they  do  this  unless  they 
judge  them  false  I  And  the  test  is,  "  By  their  fruits 
ye  shall  know  them."  But  we  do  not  need  his  ex- 
ample to  justify  us  in  passing  judgment  on  persons 
as  well  as  on  acts,  for  we  cannot  help  doing  it.  We 
do  pass  moral  judgment  upon  our  fellow-beings 
for  this  sufficient  reason.  All  the  more  reason  is 
there,  therefore,  why  our  judgments  should  always  be 


222  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

just  and  reasonable.  But  we  need  not  be  ashamed 
of  the  practice  of  judging,  if  it  is  rightly  governed. 
The  omission  of  personal  judgments  would  not  be  in 
accordance  with  the  mind  of  Christ.  It  is  often 
thought  that  it  would :  the  mind  of  Christ  is  gentle, 
and  we  must  condemn  no  man.  It  is  true  that  the 
spirit  of  Christ  is  gentle,  and  that  it  would  lead  us  to 
condemn  no  man  if  we  could  avoid  it.  But  the 
spirit  of  Christ  is  righteous  also,  and,  to  speak  of  the 
simplest  fact  of  all,  it  is  honest.  The  ideal  of  Jesus 
does  not  include  a  state  in  which  inevitable  moral 
judgments  are  held  in  suppression,  and  honest  con- 
victions concerning  good  and  evil  are  forbidden  their 
right  of  way.  He  would  have  us  judge,  as  we  must, 
but  always  fairly  and  without  contempt;  and  he 
would  have  our  condemnations  embraced  in  the 
redemptive  love  that  never  sees  evil  without  desire  to 
abolish  it,  or  an  evil  man  without  desire  to  save  him. 

The  close  kinship  of  the  golden  rule  to  the  sec- 
ond great  commandment  cannot  fail  to  be  noticed. 
That  second  law  of  love  is  indeed  a  law  of  justice, 
*^Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  for  here 
also  it  is  just  to  equalize  the  claims.  As  we  said 
about  that  law,  so  we  may  say  of  the  golden  rule, 
that  Jesus  performed  an  immense  service  to  humanity 
by  placing  it  where  he  did.  The  principle  of  the 
golden  rule  is  a  first  principle  in  all  sound  ethics, 
and  Jesus  is  the  supreme  teacher  in  religion.  What 
he  has  done  is  this:  he  has  taken  this  great  first  prin- 
ciple of  ethics  into  religion,  so  to  speak,   and  has 


JUSTICE  223 

rendered  it  amenable  to  religious  motive  and  appeal. 
Among  his  religious  counsels  he  has  given  a  central 
place  to  this  prime  ethical  command.  Similar  was 
the  act  by  which  he  placed  the  second  great  com- 
mandment side  by  side  with  the  eternal  and  neces- 
sary first.  In  thus  using  the  golden  rule,  he  took  an 
ethical  principle  that  is  sound  without  reference  to 
religion,  and  set  it  where  the  motives  of  religion  in- 
spired from  himself  would  reinforce  and  elevate  it 
ever  after.  The  service  that  he  thus  rendered  to 
humanity  has  been  appreciated  in  part,  but  is  still 
to  receive  the  recognition  that  is  its  due.  When  this 
universal  law  of  social  ethics  comes  to  receive  the  full 
benefit  that  it  will  draw  from  the  Christian  inspira- 
tion, the  new  heavens  and  new  earth  wherein  dwell- 
eth  righteousness  will  be  at  hand. 

The  golden  rule  is  primarily  a  rule  for  self-judg- 
ment. This  is  evident  upon  the  face  of  it,  and  we 
cannot  fail  to  see  that  for  this  purpose  it  is  a  most 
valuable  rule.  Hard  questions  may  arise  as  to  our 
duty  under  it,  but  they  arise  from  the  conditions,  not 
from  the  principle.  The  rule  itself  is  perfectly  in- 
telligible, and  in  general  each  person  is  in  a  position 
to  know  how  far  he  is  loyal  to  it  and  how  far  disloyal. 
But  to  judge  one's  self  under  this  rule  requires  a 
sound  conscience,  and  a  good  intelligence  too,  and 
a  fair  knowledge  of  the  life  of  other  men.  Education 
in  the  power  of  self-judgment  under  the  golden  rule 
is  one  thing  that  the  world  needs. 

It  proves  impossible,  however,  to  limit  our  judg- 
ment under  the  golden  rule  to  self-judgment.     By 


224  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

the  very  nature  of  the  Hfe  in  common  we  are  com- 
pelled to  judge  whether  other  men  are  faithful  to  it. 
The  very  existence  of  tolerable  society  depends  upon 
some  deference  being  paid  to  the  golden  rule,  and 
the  enriching  of  the  quality  of  the  social  life  depends 
upon  the  enlargement  of  loyalty  to  its  principle. 
Thus  any  extensive  violation  of  the  golden  rule  be- 
comes a  sin  against  society;  and  any  one  who  is 
watching  the  social  life  with  a  heart  eager  for  its 
welfare  cannot  fail  to  take  notice  of  such  offences. 
In  passing  judgment  upon  other  men's  loyalty  or 
disloyalty  to  the  golden  rule,  it  is  very  evident  that 
we  must  be  careful.  We  cannot  always  be  sure  that 
we  understand  the  motives  of  other  persons.  We 
may  have  little  doubt  about  them,  and  yet  there  is 
always  a  possibility  that  we  may  misjudge;  and  if 
we  do,  we  may  violate  the  golden  rule  in  our  very 
insistence  upon  it,  passing  such  judgment  as  we  would 
not  wish  to  be  returned  upon  ourselves.  Neverthe- 
less we  cannot  refrain  from  judging  others  under  this 
rule,  and  we  ought  not.  It  is  the  will  of  God  that  we 
should  judge.  One  of  God's  powerful  agencies  for 
righteousness  in  this  world  is  the  irrepressible  judg- 
ment of  men  upon  their  fellows  and  their  works. 
It  is  liable  to  error  and  abuse,  and  yet  it  is  a  genuine 
gift  of  God  for  the  common  good.  The  reformatory 
power  of  popular  judgment  is  enormous.  Espe- 
cially in  the  conditions  of  the  present  time,  when 
information  is  diffused  so  swiftly  and  so  widely,  is 
popular  judgment  becoming  enlisted  in  the  service 
of  righteousness.     By  means  of  it  God  is  pleased  to 


JUSTICE  225 

cleanse  the  world  of  much  of  its  evil;  and  much  of  the 
evil  which  popular  judgment  may  be  helpful  in  putting 
away  consists  in  sin  against  the  golden  rule.  So  the 
ideal  of  Jesus  includes  the  free  putting  forth  of  mutual 
judgment  in  the  interest  of  mutual  purification. 

In  the  present  day  the  golden  rule  and  the  ideal  of 
human  value  are  combining  to  work  conviction  of 
vast  social  sin.  The  self-judgment  that  the  golden 
rule  calls  for  is  not  merely  an  individual  matter. 
For  certain  purposes  a  group  of  men  is  a  self.  A 
firm  is  a  self,  and  so  is  a  corporation;  so  is  a  social 
class;  so  in  fact  is  society  itself.  There  are  institu- 
tions and  customs  and  practices  for  which  perhaps 
a  class  of  men  is  responsible,  or  perhaps  a  group 
of  business  interests,  or  perhaps  a  nation,  or  perhaps 
the  total  of  men  living  together  which  we  call  society. 
Some  such  customs  and  institutions  are  utterly  vio- 
lative of  the  golden  rule  and  ruinous  to  human 
value;  and  the  group  or  body  that  is  responsible  for 
them  ought  to  judge  itself  for  its  sin.  In  some  degree 
this  righteous  self-condemnation  is  becoming  a  fact. 
The  process  has  only  begun,  but  it  has  begun.  It 
will  have  to  continue  till  great  changes  have  been 
wrought.  Any  earnest  voice  of  condemnation  may 
help  to  awaken  the  voice  of  conscience  where  con- 
science needs  to  act.  It  is  the  Christian  standing  of 
this  law  of  justice  that  renders  the  moral  searchlight 
so  terrible  and  so  cleansing.  When  neglect  of  the 
golden  rule  wrecks  human  value,  there  is  heard  the 
voice  of  him  who  says,  **  Inasmuch  as  ye  did  it  not 
unto  one  of  the  least  of  these  my  brethren,  ye  did  it 


226  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

not  unto  me*';  and  that  appeal,  reinforcing  universal 
justice,  will  at  length  produce  repentance,  and  works 
meet  for  repentance,  in  many  a  field  of  social  wrong. 
The  law  of  justice  is  so  unwelcome  in  great  parts 
of  the  world's  life  that  relief  from  its  pressure  is 
sought  in  discussion,  and  especially  in  claiming  that 
the  golden  rule  is  impracticable.  Sometimes  the 
obscurity  of  the  law  is  complained  of,  the  difficulty 
of  knowing  exactly  what  one  would  wish  to  be  done 
to  himself  if  the  case  were  turned  about.  That,  how- 
ever, would  seem  to  be  no  reason  why  one  might  not 
try  to  find  out.  Oftener  it  is  insisted  that  the  thing 
cannot  be  done:  the  rule  is  a  piece  of  mere  idealism, 
with  no  possibility  of  ever  becoming  a  law  of  real 
life:  obedience  to  it  would  destroy  the  common  and 
necessary  operations  of  the  world.  But  the  law  is 
too  fundamental  and  self-commending  to  be  thus 
escaped.  This  is  a  law  whose  judgment  of  condem- 
nation or  approval  is  absolutely  inevitable,  as  soon  as 
the  moral  grade  of  life  becomes  high  and  the  voice 
of  religion  is  clear.  Of  course  the  golden  rule  is 
not  easily  practicable.  The  passions  of  life  and  the 
complications  of  self-interest  are  against  it.  Com- 
mon customs  and  institutions  have  grown  up  with 
little  regard  to  it,  and  often  expressly  for  protection 
to  selfishness.  Though  there  are  large  and  invalua- 
ble traditions  of  justice  among  men,  the  inherited 
fashion  of  the  world  favors  justice  only  in  part. 
Moreover,  the  rule  is  so  thoroughly  a  social  one  that 
one  person  alone  can  never  do  it  justice.  It  calls  for 
reciprocity,  and  can  do  its  best  work  only  when  the 
social  atmosphere  sustains  it.     Doubtless,  too,  it  is 


JUSTICE  227 

not  always  easy  to  determine  exactly  what  the  law 
demands.  Patience  and  wisdom  must  be  brought 
to  that  question,  together  with  all  the  impulses  of 
the  Christian  heart,  and  a  long  growth  of  character 
must  have  come  before  the  law  can  be  most  effective. 
The  law  is  revolutionary,  too.  Long  before  perfec- 
tion is  in  sight  it  will  be  plain  that  many  an  ancient 
institution  is  doomed,  and  that  daily  life  must  yield 
to  a  new  principle.  Shrinking  from  revolution,  the 
world  resists  the  law. 

All  this  is  true,  and  the  golden  rule  cannot  be  fully 
established  in  force  at  once;  and  yet  it  is  certain  that 
it  is  the  true  law  of  life,  whose  claim  is  not  to  be 
evaded  by  any  sophistications.  Whether  or  not  it  is 
practicable  to  the  full  is  a  question  for  the  future. 
At  present  it  certainly  is  far  more  practicable  than 
practised.  It  might  be  obeyed  far  more  fully  than  it 
is.  If  we  refuse  it  the  obedience  that  is  possible  now 
on  the  ground  that  perfect  obedience  is  not  possible 
now,  we  sin  against  light  and  treacherously  evade  a 
plain  duty.  Jesus  has  shown  us  his  ideal  for  the 
life  that  men  live  together,  and  we  are  living  at  a 
time  when  it  is  becoming  plain  as  day  that  the  prin- 
ciple of  it  would  undo  a  thousand  of  our  daily  wrongs 
and  ills.  The  world  is  suffering  for  this  very  thing, 
and  the  Christian  ideal  calls  us  on.  From  our 
Master  and  our  brethren  alike  we  receive  the  sum- 
mons to  put  forth  our  best  endeavors  toward  bring- 
ing this  prime  law  of  justice  into  full  effect. 


XII 

WEALTH 

I  CANNOT  trace  the  ideal  of  Jesus  through  its  vari- 
ous applications  in  the  common  life  of  men,  though 
only  by  seeing  it  in  some  of  its  applications  can  we 
really  know  it  as  it  is.  By  no  study  of  that  ideal  in 
the  abstract  can  we  see  how  broad  and  social  it  is, 
how  general  and  yet  how  particular,  how  searching 
and  yet  how  cheering.  Some  applications  have  al- 
ready been  apparent,  but  I  wish  to  show  one  more. 
First  and  last  he  spoke  a  good  deal  about  Wealth, 
and  about  the  rich  and  the  poor.  That  certainly  is 
a  perennial  topic,  and  one  that  needs  illumination 
from  his  peculiar  light  to-day  as  urgently  as  any; 
and  so  I  am  inclined  to  study  here  the  sayings  in 
which  he  showed  how  his  ideal  bore  upon  this  mat- 
ter. Not  all  students  understand  him  ahke  on  this 
subject,  and  probably  I  cannot  interpret  him  to  the 
satisfaction  of  all.  But  I  am  sure  that  there  are 
no  teachings  of  his  that  admit  us  more  freely  into 
the  spirit  of  his  kingdom  than  some  of  these,  or  show 
more  clearly  what  kind  of  blessing  he  wished  to  send 
into  the  life  of  human  society. 

We  must  look  for  a  moment  at  the  background  of 
the  picture,  which  we  find  in  certain  current  notions 

228 


WEALTH  229 

about  the  rich  and   the  poor,  characteristic  of  the 
time  and  place. 

Among  the  Jews,  the  poor  were  heirs  at  once  to  a 
strange  and  sad  contempt,  and  to  a  peculiar  hope. 
On  the  one  hand,  Israel  had  long  had  a  national 
tradition  of  belief  that  the  good  were  sure  to  prosper 
in  this  life,  and  the  bad  would  have  no  prosperity. 
Men  would  get  on  in  the  world  as  they  deserved. 
The  thirty-seventh  psalm,  while  it  contains  some 
beautiful  expressions  of  pure  religion,  is  the  classical 
passage  in  the  Old  Testament  to  this  effect.  The 
behef  that  "they  that  are  blessed  of  him  shall  inherit 
the  land,  and  they  that  are  cursed  of  him  shall  be 
cut  off,"  and  the  confidence,  "I  have  never  seen  the 
righteous  forsaken,  nor  his  seed  begging  bread,'* 
had  been  a  sincere  attempt  to  solve  the  problem 
of  trouble  and  of  human  inequality.  This  stands 
among  the  loyal  but  mistaken  endeavors  that  men 
have  made  to  justify  the  ways  of  God.  This  view 
of  life  had  been  partly  laid  aside  before  the  days  of 
Jesus,  because  it  was  found  not  to  accord  with  the 
facts,  but  it  had  left  its  effect  in  the  low  estimation 
in  which  the  poor  were  held.  Those  who  could  show 
no  prosperity  to  attest  the  divine  favor  were  more  or 
less  under  a  cloud,  especially  in  the  esteem  of  the 
prouder  classes,  to  which  the  religious  leaders  mostly 
belonged.  Generations  of  poor  people  had  lived  un- 
der the  shadow  of  the  thought  that  they  were  poor 
because  they  did  not  deserve  to  be  rich.  Yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  in  strange  contrast  to  this,  Israel  had 
from  other  scriptures  another  national  tradition.  It 
was  written  that  the  poor  were  the  special  care  of 


230  THE  IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

Jehovah,  who  was  the  God  of  the  friendless  and 
unfortunate.  Often  in  the  Psalms  he  is  invoked  as 
their  helper,  and  responds  with  strong  promises  for 
their  encouragement.  Hs  is  the  God  of  the  father- 
less and  the  widow.  In  spite  of  the  doctrine  that 
blessed  the  prosperous  in  his  name,  there  was  a 
deep-lying  impression  that  God  is  on  the  side  of  the 
weaker  party,  so  that  "he  that  hath  no  helper"  has 
in  him  a  friend  who  will  not  fail.  Thus  a  peculiar 
mixture  of  contempt  and  favor  was  the  portion  of 
the  poor  in  the  tinie  of  Jesus.  It  was  in  the  common 
thought  that  God  must  be  against  them,  and  yet  in 
another  light  he  seemed  to  be  their  special  friend. 

In  the  same  conditions,  the  rich  were  heirs  in  a 
special  degree  to  a  false  conceit  of  their  own  virtue. 
Centuries  of  national  decay  had  not  wholly  effaced 
the  vain  pride  fostered  by  the  doctrine  that  pros- 
perity proves  the  divine  favor.  Of  course  the  temp- 
tation to  conceit  and  superciliousness  followed.  Their 
wealth  was  precious  as  all  wealth  is,  but  it  was  gifted 
with  a  more  dangerously  suggestive  quality  as  a  wit- 
ness to  the  approval  of  God.  Of  such  a  doctrine 
self-righteousness  is  the  sure  fruit.  Though  this 
theory  of  wealth  had  faded  in  part,  its  influence 
remained,  in  a  pious  enhancement  of  the  respect 
that  was  paid  to  the  rich,  and  in  their  sense  of  deserv- 
ing it. 

Jesus  moved  in  such  a  world  as  this,  and  we  have 
to  observe  how  he  acted  and  spoke  in  it. 

As  to  his  personal  position,  he  was  neither  rich  nor 
poor,  but  was  more  nearly  poor  than  rich.     The 


WEALTH  231 

statement  of  his  poverty  is  often  exaggerated.  He 
and  his  associates  were  not  in  the  poorest  class  or 
anywhere  near  it.  His  position  was  lowly,  but  there 
is  no  sign  that  it  was  one  of  want.  He  is  called  the 
carpenter's  son,  and  the  carpenter,  and  the  common 
impression  that  he  worked  as  a  carpenter,  is  prob- 
ably correct.  He  was  of  the  working  class,  but  labor 
was  honored,  not  despised,  and  industry  brought  a 
living.  His  disciples  were  mainly  of  the  same  class 
with  himself,  but  some  were  better  off.  His  saying, 
"The  Son  of  man  hath  not  where  to  lay  his  head,*' 
does  not  mean  that  he  was  homeless  all  his  days. 
When  he  uttered  these  words  he  was  a  teacher  who 
could  promise  no  fixed  abode  to  his  followers,  having 
none  himself.  **If  you  follow  me  now,  you  must 
expect  to  be  a  wanderer."  Apparently  Jesus  moved 
among  both  classes,  rich  and  poor,  with  equal  free- 
dom. He  visited  the  homes  of  rich  men  by  invita- 
tion. At  various  times  he  was  the  guest  of  the  pros- 
perous, and  apparently  welcome.  At  the  same  time 
the  story  of  his  ministry  is  a  consistent  story  of  friend- 
liness to  the  poor. 

When  we  come  to  his  teaching,  we  find  that  he  did 
not  address  men  primarily  as  rich  or  poor.  Rightly, 
too,  for  he  was  concerned  with  them  all,  and  spoke 
to  them  as  men,  handling  themes  that  touched  them 
all  alike.  His  large  and  simple  view  of  Hfe  was 
suited  to  the  case  of  all  men,  and  he  could  appeal  to 
them  wherever  he  found  them.  His  concern  with 
them  as  rich  or  poor  was  only  a  concern  as  to  how 
well  they  were  fulfilling  their  destiny  by  doing  their 


232  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

duty  to  God  and  men.  But  this  was  the  vital  ques- 
tion, and  he  was  entirely  free  in  speaking  to  them  as 
rich  or  poor  if  he  could  help  them  here.  To  the 
rich  as  rich  he  seems  to  have  spoken  most,  and  he 
spoke  in  all  faithfulness.  He  pointed  out  their  re- 
sponsibilities and  dangers,  and  he  never  showed  the 
slightest  deference  to  their  wealth,  or  to  them  as 
holding  it.  To  the  poor  he  spoke  according  to  their 
condition,  bringing  them  a  tender  heart  and  a  mes- 
sage of  divine  kindness.  He  found  the  hearts  of  the 
needy.  Concerning  himself  he  quoted  from  proph- 
ecy, "  He  hath  anointed  me  to  preach  glad  tidings  to 
the  poor,"  and  described  his  ministry  by  saying, 
among  other  things,  that  '*the  poor  have  good  tidings 
preached  to  them."  Perhaps  the  word  poor  was 
broader  in  his  meaning  than  it  is  in  our  common 
speech;  but  what  he  meant  was  that  he  was  bringing 
the  good  news  of  sympathetic  and  helpful  love  to  the 
unfortunate  whom  men  despised,  and  was  thus  ful- 
filling the  ancient  hope  of  the  poor  that  God  would 
be  their  helper.  So  the  poor  heard  his  voice  with  a 
tender  and  pathetic  gladness,  and  out  of  the  shadow 
of  an  undeserved  contempt  many  came  into  the  light 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Taking  his  conduct  as  a  whole,  we  cannot  see  that 
Jesus  either  commended  or  condemned  riches  or 
poverty  as  necessarily  involving  a  moral  quality. 
Neither  class  did  he  either  court  or  shun.  He  spoke 
severely  and  warningly  to  one  class  and  comfortably 
to  the  other,  but  he  did  not  avoid  the  class  that  he 
warned,  or  praise  the  class  that  he  comforted.     Both 


WEALTH  233 

were  deemed  worthy  of  his  company  and  of  his  faith- 
ful counsels. 

The  utterances  concerning  wealth,  and  concerning 
the  rich  and  the  poor,  are  found  in  the  Gospels  of 
Matthew  and  Luke.  At  first  sight  it  is  surprising  to 
find  that  between  Matthew  and  Luke  there  is  a  re- 
markable difference  of  tone  on  the  subject.  The 
Gospel  of  Luke  is  sometimes  called  the  Gospel  of  the 
poor.  It  contains  the  largest  number  of  allusions  to 
them,  and  records  the  strongest  words  of  good  cheer 
for  their  encouragement.  It  also  contains  warnings 
of  the  rich  as  a  class,  which  in  Matthew  do  not  ap- 
pear. Here  alone  stand  the  parables  of  warning  to 
rich  men — the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus,  the  Rich 
Fool,  the  Dishonest  Steward.  Some  sayings  that  in 
Matthew  bear  another  meaning  appear  in  Luke  with 
keen  edge  against  the  rich.  Matthew's  beatitude, 
"  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,"  becomes  in  Luke,  "  Blessed  are  ye 
poor,  for  yours  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  Not 
only  so,  but  it  is  matched  by  a  woe,  either  of  con- 
demnation or  of  pity,  upon  the  opposite  class:  "But 
woe  unto  you  that  are  rich,  for  ye  have  received  your 
consolation."  In  like  manner  the  "hunger  and 
thirst  after  righteousness"  of  Matthew  appears  in 
Luke  as  "hunger" — "Blessed  are  ye  that  hunger 
now,  for  ye  shall  be  filled  " ;  and  this  again  is  matched 
by  "Woe  unto  you  that  are  full  now,  for  ye  shall 
hunger."  Thus  we  find  differing  testimonies  attrib- 
uted to  Jesus.     Wc  find  a  strong  utterance  against 


234  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

the  rich  in  one  Gospel,  which  the  compiler  of  another 
Gospel  had  no  idea  of  putting  in. 

It  is  interesting  to  find  the  same  divergent  testi- 
monies in  the  writings  of  men  who  had  learned  of 
Jesus.  These  two  views  of  rich  and  poor  appear  in 
the  early  church  and  run  through  the  New  Testa- 
ment. In  fellowship  with  the  Gospel  of  Luke  stands 
most  decidedly  the  Epistle  of  James,  and  the  same 
tone  sounds  in  the  early  chapters  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles.  In  these  writings  the  poor  man  appears  to 
have  the  advantage  as  a  Christian,  while  the  rich 
man  is  more  or  less  at  a  disadvantage  because  he 
is  rich.  But  the  Gospel  of  Mark  is  of  Hke  effect 
with  Matthew  on  the  point,  and  the  latter  part  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  in  the  same  company,  while 
the  Epistles  of  Paul  have  no  animus  against  the  rich. 
In  this  difference  of  feeling  there  is  nothing  to  wonder 
at,  since  there  are  reasons  for  it  in  human  nature 
and  in  the  common  relations  of  life;  but  it  has  often 
been  perplexing  to  find  both  feelings  attributed  to 
Jesus  himself.  Whatever  the  opinions  of  his  fol- 
lowers may  have  been,  we  should  be  glad  to  know 
just  what  he  said,  and  which  sentiment  truly  rep- 
resents him.  Was  he  as  severe  upon  the  rich  as  he 
appears  in  Luke,  or  has  that  meaning  been  inter- 
preted into  his  words  by  the  feehng  of  his  followers  .? 
It  would  be  a  satisfaction  to  know  which  form  of  the 
beatitude  of  the  poor  is  really  characteristic  of  Jesus. 

EflTorts  have  been  made  to  decide  which  form  of 
the  beatitude  was  the  original,  but  without  very  sat- 
isfactory success.     Reasons  are  given  for  both  con- 


WEALTH  235 

elusions,  but  students  have  after  all  decided  largely 
in  pursuance  of  their  temperament  or  associations. 
For  my  own  part,  I  have  not  been  able  to  see  how 
without  a  certain  amount  of  partisanship  I  could 
reach  an  opinion  as  to  whether  the  original  beatitude 
was  ** Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,"  or  "Blessed  are 
ye  poor."  So  I  am  compelled  to  leave  that  his- 
torical question  unanswered. 

But  really  I  do  not  suffer  seriously  from  this  in- 
ability. If  it  were  not  for  a  single  point,  there  would 
be  no  trouble  at  all.  The  only  difficulty  is  that  the 
two  forms  of  the  beatitude  appear  to  be  intended  as 
reports  of  one  and  the  same  utterance.  The  two 
Gospels  seem  to  be  quoting  the  same  thing,  but 
differ.  But  this  need  not  surprise  us  or  perplex  us. 
It  is  not  as  if  we  were  handling  documents  that 
promised  perfect  accuracy.  This  is  not  the  only 
discrepancy  of  the  kind  that  we  have  to  deal  with. 
We  are  often  meeting  just  such  differences  in  the 
Gospels,  and  by  this  time  they  ought  not  to  trouble 
us.  If  the  two  passages  represent  the  same  saying, 
as  apparently  they  do,  one  of  the  reports  must  have 
been  altered  by  reporter  or  compiler,  or  somewhere 
between,  and  conformed  to  some  one's  understand- 
ing of  the  Master. 

And  if  we  still  feel  that  we  must  know  which  was 
the  original  saying,  it  must  be  said  that  so  far  as 
our  conception  of  Jesus  and  his  ideal  is  concerned  it 
does  not  make  so  very  much  difference.  Both  say- 
ings may  have  fallen  from  his  lips.  Certainly  the 
Master  may  have  said,  **  Blessed   are  the  poor  in 


236  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven";  and  cer- 
tainly in  some  moods  and  connections  the  same 
Master  may  have  spoken  comfortably  to  the  literal 
poor  and  said,  "  Blessed  are  ye  poor,  for  yours  is  the 
kingdom  of  God";  certainly,  too,  he  may  have 
warned  the  rich  that  they  may  be  having  all  their 
comforts  now,  that  their  fulness  is  but  temporary, 
and  their  woe  is  coming  if  they  continue  in  the  rich 
man's  pride.  He  who  said,  "How  hardly  shall  a  rich 
man  enter  the  kingdom,"  may  have  said  also,  "  But 
woe  to  you  that  are  rich,  for  ye  have  received  your 
consolation."  In  either  instance  the  denunciation 
does  not  go  out  so  much  against  the  fact  of  wealth  as 
against  the  temper  of  mind  that  wealth  encourages. 
Either  of  the  two  sayings  corresponds  to  the  ideal  of 
Jesus.  They  do  not  contradict  each  other  in  any 
vital  way,  and  he  may  perfectly  well  have  uttered 
them  both.  So  I  do  not  feel  the  need  of  great  labor 
to  ascertain  which  was  the  original  beatitude.  I 
should  be  glad  to  know,  but  for  the  interpretation  of 
Jesus  and  his  view  of  life  it  is  not  absolutely  neces- 
sary. Both  represent  the  mind  of  the  Master,  each 
in  its  own  connection. 

It  was  in  his  parables  that  Jesus  spoke  most 
largely,  and  most  plainly,  about  rich  and  poor  and 
the  use  of  wealth.  As  to  the  parables  of  Jesus,  it 
has  always  been  noticed  that  he  makes  much  use  of 
analogies  from  nature  to  illustrate  the  life  of  man  in 
relation  to  God,  and  grateful  recognition  has  always 
been  made  of  his  testimony  to  the  spiritual  suggest- 


WEALTH  237 

iveness  of  the  natural  world.  This  view  of  his 
words  has  not  received  too  much  attention,  but  suffi- 
cient notice  has  not  been  taken  of  the  fact  that  he 
has  drawn  more  illustrations  from  human  affairs 
than  he  has  from  nature.  Many  of  his  parables 
are  simply  human  narratives,  and  some  are  stories 
of  business  and  industry.  Some  of  them  are  as 
secular  as  any  stories  can  be,  and  some  have  the 
use  of  money  for  their  turning-point.  And  we  have 
no  reason  to  assume  that  he  used  these  worldly 
narratives  solely  for  illustration  of  spiritual  and 
heavenly  things.  Money,  for  example,  he  does  not 
regard  only  as  a  symbol  of  eternal  values.  The 
better  we  know  him,  the  more  certain  we  are  that 
he  means  to  teach  earthly  lessons  also. 

Two  habits  of  mind  in  Christian  readers  have 
favored  this  misunderstanding.  First  the  long  habit 
of  reading  everything  in  the  Bible  as  technically 
rehgious  has  made  it  seem  almost  incredible  that 
Jesus  talked  about  the  commonest  matters  of  this 
world's  ethics.  All  must  relate  to  what  is  known  as 
the  religious  life.  Thus  preoccupied,  readers  have 
failed  to  see  how  much  of  this  world's  ordinary  Hfe 
is  touched  in  the  words  that  lie  before  them.  And  a 
similar  blinding  to  facts  has  resulted  from  the  long 
habit  of  reading  the  Bible  as  a  book  of  individualism 
and  not  of  society.  The  individual  career  and  the 
personal  salvation  have  so  filled  the  field  of  view  that 
readers  have  not  lifted  up  their  eyes  to  the  social 
horizon,  or  perceived  how  Jesus  was  working  out 
an  ideal  of  salvation  not  only  for  the  individual,  but 


238  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

for  the  world.  When  Christian  readers  can  shake 
themselves  free  from  these  preoccupations  they  will 
better  understand  their  Master. 

One  of  the  secular  illustrations,  thoroughly  secu- 
lar, is  found  in  the  parable  of  the  Talents,  of  which 
that  of  the  Pounds  is  apparently  a  variant.  This 
is  a  story  of  the  use  of  money,  which  might  come 
straight  out  of  actual  life.  Certain  slaves  are  in- 
trusted by  their  master  with  money  in  various 
amounts,  which  they  are  to  use  in  trade,  according 
to  their  own  judgment  and  ability,  to  make  gain  for 
him.  Perhaps  in  such  a  case  they  might  receive  a 
commission,  but  that  does  not  appear  in  the  parable. 
Of  course  the  qualities  essential  to  success  are  good 
judgment,  diligence,  and  fidelity.  The  size  of  the 
trust — ten  talents,  five,  or  one — is  prominent  in  ap- 
pearance, but  does  not  enter  at  all  into  the  question 
of  the  master's  approval  at  the  end.  What  is  ap- 
proved and  rewarded  is  good,  wise,  practical  use  of 
the  money.  What  is  condemned  is  the  irresponsi- 
ble spirit  that  shirks  the  task  and  finds  excuses  for  it, 
the  laziness  that  ignores  the  trust  and  gets  nothing 
to  show  for  it  at  last.  Faithfulness  and  good  man- 
agement meet  their  reward,  while  punishment  falls 
upon  the  indolent  man  who  exerts  himself  only  in 
finding  reasons  for  neglect  of  his  duty. 

Undoubtedly  this  is  intended  to  illustrate  the 
trusts  that  are  committed  to  men  in  connection  with 
the  work  of  God's  kingdom.  But  see  how  this 
financial  illustration  represents  them.     If  it  pictures 


WEALTH  239 

them  fairly,  they  must  be  practical  trusts  that  can- 
not be  fulfilled  in  thought  or  aspiration,  but  require 
work  of  the  liveliest  order;  and  they  must  be  social 
trusts,  to  be  wrought  out  not  in  solitude,  but  by  wise 
and  strenuous  endeavor  among  men.  They  require 
far-sight,  alertness,  skill,  and  patience,  just  as  the  use 
of  money  does.  Thus  the  parable  pictures  the  king- 
dom as  a  busy  place,  where  men  work  with  a  will  as 
they  do  in  making  money.  The  King's  business  is 
business.  And  at  the  same  time  the  illustration  is 
in  turn  Illustrated  by  the  use  that  is  made  of  it. 
The  kind  of  business  life  that  Jesus  would  think 
well  of  is  seen  In  the  picture  that  he  uses  to  teach  a 
lesson.  He  has  pointed  out  with  approval  the  kind 
of  qualities  essential  to  the  management  of  a  finan- 
cial enterprise.  He  has  illustrated  his  point  by 
showing  wealth  held  as  a  trust  for  profitable  use, 
for  which  its  holder  will  be  called  to  give  account; 
and  he  conveys  the  impression  that  such  a  trust 
ought  to  be  administered  by  far-seeing,  painstaking, 
well-managed  effort  for  the  worthy  fulfilment  of  the 
end  In  view.  He  has  not  said  in  so  many  words 
that  wealth  is  a  trust  from  God,  but  his  manner  of 
using  the  financial  illustration  implies  this  lesson. 
Wealth  Is  a  trust  for  which  account  must  be  given; 
the  use  that  is  made  of  it  is  a  test  of  those  who  have 
it;  the  opportunity  that  it  opens  must  be  met  In  the 
spirit  that  the  parable  commends;  to  evade  the 
giver's  will  and  purpose  Is  failure  in  the  work  of 
life;  and  Jesus'  ideal  of  faithfulness,  wisdom,  and 
steadfast  purpose  shines  out  In  full  brightness.     He 


240  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

would  see  men  of  wealth  using  it  with  all  their  vigor 
for  the  Giver's  ends. 


In  another  parable  his  estimate  of  wealth  and  his 
idea  of  the  way  to  use  it  are  brought  out  by  contrast. 
It  is  the  parable  of  the  Foolish  Rich  Man.  The  dis- 
course starts  from  a  question  of  property,  a  hearer 
having  asked  Jesus  to  bid  his  brother  divide  the 
inheritance  with  him.  Of  the  merits  of  the  case  we 
know  nothing,  for  Jesus  ignores  the  request,  on  the 
ground  that  such  work  does  not  belong  to  his  office; 
he  is  no  judge  or  divider.  But  he  seizes  the  oppor- 
tunity for  a  word  of  counsel.  Beware,  he  says,  of  all 
covetousness.  What  a  man  has  is  not  the  main 
point;  not  in  the  abundance  of  his  possessions  does 
his  life  consist.  Life  devoted  to  possessions  ends  in 
failure,  and  wealth  that  is  turned  to  no  gracious 
outlet  soon  proves  its  own  worthlessness.  See  the 
rich  man  with  harvests  too  great  for  his  storage. 
He  has  enough  for  many  years,  and  is  satisfied  and 
comfortable,  desiring  nothing  more.  He  thinks  only 
of  himself,  and  counts  only  upon  enjoying  what 
he  has.  Nothing  is  charged  against  him  but  this. 
There  is  no  hint  of  fraud  or  oppression  in  the  getting 
of  his  wealth.  The  earth  has  given  him  its  harvests, 
and  he  is  simply  the  self-contented  man,  calling  upon 
himself  to  take  his  ease  and  his  pleasure  in  his 
abundance.  His  wealth  has  made  him  self-satisfied 
and  self-indulgent — that  is  all.  But  life  ends.  God 
says  to  him,  "Thou  fool,  this  night  is  thy  soul  re- 
quired of  thee,"  and  instantly  all  that  he  has  drops 


WEALTH  241 

from  worth  to  worthlessness.  It  is  his  no  longer. 
Whose  shall  it  be  ?  any  one's  but  his.  At  that  sum- 
mons, sure  to  come,  wealth  loses  all  its  value.  The 
trouble  is,  says  Jesus,  that  the  man  has  been  laying 
up  treasure  for  himself,  and  is  not  rich  toward  God. 
His  seeking  has  been  self-seeking,  and  he  has  turned 
everything  to  self-indulgence.  Jesus'  way  is  for  a 
man  to  be  rich  toward  God,  heir  to  a  spiritual  value 
in  God's  sight;  and  this  he  may  do  whether  he  is 
rich  in  this  world  or  not.  If  he  has  the  wealth  of 
this  world  and  it  does  not  help  to  make  him  rich 
toward  God  through  the  use  that  he  makes  of  it, 
then  he  too  is  a  foolish  man,  like  the  man  in  the 
parable,  and  has  gained  nothing  from  all  that  he 
possesses.  If  this  man  is  regarded  as  holding  his 
wealth  as  a  trust  from  God,  then  he  certainly  has 
"digged  in  the  earth  and  hid  his  Lord's  money,"  and 
has  nothing  to  show  for  it.  The  selfish,  thoughtless 
rich  of  all  ages,  who  know  no  use  of  their  wealth 
beyond  their  own  enjoyment,  and  fancy  that  this 
is  enough,  here  have  the  withering  light  of  Jesus' 
ideal  turned  upon  them.  Their  alienation  from  that 
ideal  is  complete,  and  their  failure  is  as  sure  as 
death. 

Another  parable  carries  the  lesson  one  step  further, 
from  self-indulgence  to  that  selfish  indiflPerence  to 
others  which  is  its  natural  companion.  It  is  the 
parable  of  the  Rich  Man  and  Lazarus;  but  if  titles 
were  to  be  made  appropriate  it  would  be  called  the 
parable  of  the  rich  man  and  the  beggar. 


242  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

This  parable  has  one  scene  laid  in  the  future  life, 
and  Christian  readers  have  been  so  fascinated  by  this 
glimpse  of  the  unseen  world  that  they  have  done 
scant  justice  to  the  chief  meaning.  This  is  not  a 
parable  of  the  future  life,  but  of  the  present.  The 
reference  to  the  future  life  is  only  incidental  to  the 
purpose  of  the  story,  and  we  have  no  reason  to  sup- 
pose that  Jesus  intended  to  draw  plain  pictures  of 
heaven  and  hell.  He  is  talking  about  human  rela- 
tions that  exist  here  and  now  and  are  bound  to  bear 
kindred  fruit  hereafter.  The  parable  is  one  of  the 
plainest  and  sharpest  utterances  ever  made  concern- 
ing man's  inhumanity  to  man,  encouraged  by  the 
luxurious  life  of  the  wealthy.  Through  the  sharpest 
of  contrasts  his  ideal  of  human  fellowship  and  help- 
fulness comes  out. 

There  is  a  rich  man  who  lives  self-indulgently  and 
splendidly.  Unnoticed  at  his  door  lies  a  beggar, 
longing  for  so  much  as  even  the  crumbs  from  the 
rich  man's  table.  This  rich  man  is  not  accused  of 
dishonesty,  or  oppression,  or  avarice.  His  fault  in- 
deed is  not  described  in  words:  it  is  only  exhibited. 
He  lives  alone  in  his  glory,  and  is  indifferent  to 
another's  need,  and  even  unaware  of  it,  though  it 
lies  plainly  in  his  sight.  Selfishness  and  luxury  have 
rendered  him  contentedly  isolated  from  humanity. 
This  is  all;  the  rich  man  does  not  harm  the  beggar: 
he  is  simply  unaware  of  him. 

But  the  scene  changes.  The  beggar  dies  and 
goes,  in  the  care  of  angels,  where  all  good  Hebrews 
hope  to  go.     The  rich  man  dies  also,  and  to  his  sur- 


WEALTH  243 

prise  finds  himself  in  torments.  He  sees  where  the 
beggar  is,  and  cries  out,  begging  himself,  entreating 
for  even  a  drop  of  water,  a  moment's  rehef,  to  be 
brought  him  by  the  man  whom  at  his  own  table  he 
overlooked.  But  in  vain.  He  is  reminded  that  the 
two  have  changed  places.  In  his  lifetime  he  had 
what  he  wanted  while  the  beggar  wished  in  vain, 
but  now  the  case  is  reversed.  Each  is  reaping  his 
harvest  in  kind.  Moreover,  they  cannot  change 
places  now  or  do  anything  for  each  other.  The  mis- 
sion of  the  water-carrier  is  impossible;  the  sufferer 
must  bear  it — he  cannot  be  helped  out.  And  now, 
in  this  lurid  light  of  consequences,  the  story  comes 
back  to  this  world,  to  end  where  it  began,  in  human 
life.  The  sufferer  in  the  flame  thinks  of  his  five 
brothers,  still  alive  amid  the  old  temptations  of 
wealth  and  luxury,  and  entreats  that  they  may  be 
warned  by  the  beggar  sent  back  to  earth,  to  avoid 
the  Hfe  that  will  bring  them  where  he  now  is.  But 
in  vain  again.  He  is  told  that  there  is  no  need  of 
their  coming  to  that  place  of  torment,  since  they 
have  God's  own  teaching  in  Moses  and  the  prophets. 
A  messenger  from  the  dead  would  bring  them  no 
new  light  or  power,  for  their  own  Scriptures  tell 
them  what  kind  of  life  will  keep  them  out  of  hell. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  Jesus  represents  one  man  as 
in  torments  because  he  was  rich  and  the  other  in 
Abraham's  bosom  because  he  was  poor.  Why  the 
rich  man  is  in  torments  we  infer  from  the  beginning 
of  the  story,  where  he  appears  in  selfish  isolation, 
prevented  by  his  love  of  luxury  from  knowing  that 


244  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

another  is  in  need.  Why  the  poor  man  is  in  Abra- 
ham's bosom  we  are  not  told:  we  are  only  shown 
that  he  is  comforted  there,  whence  we  infer  that 
he  is  worthy  of  the  comfort  and  belongs  where  com- 
fort is  to  be  found.  The  lesson  that  the  parable 
does  drive  home  with  power  is  that  wealth  brings 
to  its  possessor  a  terrible  opportunity  and  temptation 
to  be  separate  in  interest  from  his  kind.  If  it  absorbs 
him  in  luxury  and  enjoyment,  it  isolates  him.  At 
his  princely  table  a  man  is  apt  to  forget  that  there 
are  beggars,  even  though  one  is  lying  at  his  door. 
If  he  knows  that  the  beggars  exist,  still  his  luxury 
may  easily  blind  him  to  their  necessities.  Not  that 
a  man  needs  to  be  rich  to  be  thus  alienated  from 
the  human  fraternity;  but  for  the  rich  the  tempta- 
tion is  tremendous.  The  parable  bears  home  the 
lesson,  too,  that  such  selfish  alienation  from  one's 
kind  works  hopeless  misery.  God's  world  is  not  a 
world  in  which  such  life  can  prosper.  And  it  is  a 
present-day  lesson,  uttered  in  a  world  where  all  who 
hear  it  have  light  enough  to  show  them  the  way  of 
human  sympathy  and  help.  Thus  does  Jesus  cast 
the  revealing  light  of  his  ideal  upon  the  sin  of  indif- 
ference to  man,  which  wealth  does  so  much  to  foster. 
In  the  kingdom  that  he  desires  to  bring,  no  man  is 
selfishly  aHenated  from  his  brother. 

Another  sharp  lesson  on  the  use  of  money  meets 
us  in  the  parable  of  the  Dishonest  Steward.  To  this 
parable  many  meanings  have  been  attributed,  and 
yet  it  is  intelligible  enough -when  it  is  taken  as  a 


WEALTH  245 

simple  story  from  real  life,  addressed  to  a  real  audi- 
ence to  whom  the  conditions  were  familiar.  It  is 
plain  at  a  glance  that  it  was  intended  for  reproof 
and  warning  to  certain  rich  men,  but  to  what  class 
of  rich  men  ?  This  Jesus  himself  decides  for  us,  by 
calling  their  possessions  "the  mammon  of  unright- 
eousness.'* This  can  only  mean  "unrighteous  mam- 
mon," or  wealth  dishonestly  obtained.  Even  with- 
out this  phrase  to  guide  us  the  meaning  ought  to  be 
plain;  for,  as  all  readers  know,  it  is  a  dishonest  trick 
with  money  that  the  parable  recounts  and  traces  to 
its  end.  So  it  is  plain  that  Jesus  was  warning  men 
who  had  become  rich  unrighteously.  It  appears  too, 
as  the  story  proceeds,  that  the  men  entertained  some 
idea  of  using  their  ill-gotten  wealth  in  the  interest 
of  their  own  future  welfare.  Probably  they  thought 
of  doing  good  with  it,  or  of  devoting  it  to  some 
sacred  service,  in  the  hope  that  in  the  kingdom  of 
God,  soon  to  be  estabhshed,  it  would  win  them  a 
welcome.  Somehow,  at  any  rate,  they  had  the  idea 
of  "making  friends"  by  means  of  it,  to  serve  their 
own  advantage  in  the  future.  The  parable  itself 
provides  this  background  for  our  understanding  of  it. 
The  story  is  that  a  rich  proprietor  has  let  his  land 
on  shares  to  tenants,  and  at  the  end  of  the  season 
they  are  to  turn  over  to  him  his  proportion  of  the 
crops.  They  pay  in  kind.  His  steward,  or  manager, 
who  collects  the  rents,  has  been  found  guilty  of  some 
wasteful  mismanagement,  and  is  told  to  make  up  his 
accounts  preparatory  to  vacating  his  office.  He  re- 
flects that  he  is  too  frail  for  hard  work  and  too  proud 


246  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

to  beg,  and  decides  that  he  must  do  something  to  take 
care  of  himself  when  his  office  is  gone.  He  thinks 
out  a  plan  that  suits  him.  Before  making  up  his 
accounts  he  goes  around  and  asks  each  tenant  how 
much  he  is  owing  the  proprietor  as  his  share  of  the 
year's  crop.  On  getting  the  answer,  by  the  author- 
ity that  he  still  holds  as  manager,  he  tells  each  one 
to  report  a  smaller  debt.  This  means,  of  course, 
that  he  is  using  the  proprietor's  authority  to  make 
every  tenant  a  present  at  the  proprietor's  expense. 
He  is  well  assured  that  none  of  them  will  report  him 
for  this,  for  they  will  all  profit  by  the  trick;  and  he 
calculates  that  in  their  gratitude  for  this  relief  they 
will  take  him  into  their  houses  for  a  while  and  look 
out  for  him  until  he  can  turn  himself  to  some  other 
occupation.  The  proprietor  finds  out  what  he  has 
done,  as  of  course  he  must,  and  cannot  help  praising 
him  for  a  shrewd  rogue  who  has  played  a  sharp  trick. 
Jesus  thinks  it  a  shrewd  trick  too;  for,  as  he  says, 
that  kind  of  people,  children  of  this  world,  are 
shrewder  in  their  sphere  of  life  than  the  children  of 
light  are  in  theirs.  The  palm  for  smartness  goes  to 
the  wicked. 

After  the  story  the  application.  "And  I  say  unto 
you,  make  to  yourselves  friends  by  means  of  the 
mammon  of  unrighteousness;  that  when  it  shall  fail, 
they  may  receive  you  into  the  eternal  tabernacles." 
But  of  course  this  is  ironical.  When  Jesus  tells  the 
holders  of  dishonest  money  to  do  what  the  villain 
in  the  story  did,  in  hope  of  gaining  what  he  had 
sought,  there  is  no  other  way  to  understand  him;  he 


WEALTH  247 

must  be  Ironical.  ''Go,  you  holders  of  wealth  that 
you  have  gotten  by  fraud,  go,  and  do  Hkewise.  You 
are  looking  to  the  time  when  you  will  be  wanting 
a  welcome  in  eternal  dwelling-places.  Very  well,  fol- 
low out  your  plan :  trust  your  corrupt  money  to  rnake 
you  friends  against  that  time.  Use  your  dishonest 
gains  with  the  idea  of  buying  your  welco«me  in  the 
kingdom  of  God — and  perhaps  you  will  find  the  wel- 
come waiting  for  you  when  you  need  it!" 

The  parable  does  not  tell  us  all  that  we  would  like 
to  know  about  riches  basely  gained.  It  does  not 
tell  what  positive  use  ought  to  be  made  of  such  pos- 
sessions, or  answer  the  question  whether  "tainted 
money"  is  capable  or  incapable  of  doing  good  in  the 
world.  But  that  tainted  money  is  bad  money  for  its 
owner,  and  that  he  must  not  expect  to  win  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  by  using  it  for  that  purpose,  it 
does  make  very  plain.  The  plan  does  not  succeed, 
even  in  the  story;  how  much  less,  then,  with  God! 
How  unlovely,  too,  does  such  a  plan  appear  when  it 
is  portrayed  as  an  actual  thing  in  real  Hfe!  Call 
things  by  their  right  names;  call  fraud  fraud.  Call 
men  by  their  right  names  too,  and  let  them  learn  to 
call  themselves  by  their  right  names,  and  see  them- 
selves as  they  are. 

It  may  seem  very  little  to  say  that  the  ideal  of 
Jesus  here  appears  in  clearness  and  power  against 
dishonesty  in  the  gaining  of  wealth,  and  against  all 
hypocritical  tricks  to  make  base  winnings  serve  the 
final  good  of  the  winner.  But  it  is  not  so  little, 
after  all.     These  are  perfectly  proper  things  for  the 


248  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

high-minded  Jesus  to  denounce.  The  implied  warn- 
ings, too,  are  all  worthy  of  him.  In  all  gaining  of 
money  there  is  dreadful  opportunity  of  falling  into 
some  dishonest  method  through  keen  self-interest. 
If  the  men  who  know  this  temptation  by  experience 
could  be  counted  up,  they  would  be  numerous  enough 
to  vindicate  the  Master  a  thousand  times  for  uttering 
this  parable.  And  when  wrong  has  been  done,  there 
is  often  temptation  somehow  to  carry  it  off  by  high 
professions,  and  cover  it  up  under  later  good  inten- 
tions, and  hope  that  after  all  it  may  do  no  final  harm 
or  may  even  be  turned  to  good.  The  parable  serves 
a  world-wide  and  age-long  purpose  as  a  vigorous  ex- 
pression of  the  high  standard  of  cleanness  and  honor 
that  Jesus  would  have  all  men  hold  respecting  money. 

All  the  synoptics  tell  how  little  children  were 
brought  to  Jesus  for  his  blessing,  and  how  he  said 
that  the  kingdom  of  God  must  be  received  in  the 
spirit  of  a  little  child;  and  immediately  after  this  they 
all  tell  of  the  rich  young  man  who  ran  eagerly  to  ques- 
tion Jesus  but  turned  sadly  away.  We  have  met  him 
before  in  this  study,  but  he  comes  to  us  here  again, 
and  through  him  the  Master  gives  us  a  lesson  on  our 
present  topic.  He  has  kept  the  commandments, 
but  is  not  satisfied;  something  has  stirred  a  deeper 
longing,  and  whatever  more  must  be  done  to  obtain 
eternal  life  he  feels  himself  ready  to  do.  He  touches 
the  Master's  heart  by  his  sincerity  and  his  high  pos- 
sibilities, but  he  cannot  be  received  as  he  is.  Even 
the  external  conditions  are  against  it.     The  ideal  of 


WEALTH  249 

life  for  the  little  group  about  Jesus  will  not  admit 
him.  If  he  *' follows"  with  his  wealth  still  in  his 
hands,  he  will  seem  both  to  himself  and  to  the  others 
to  be  unlike  the  rest,  and  if  he  spends  freely  for  the 
support  of  the  company,  the  characteristic  type  of 
its  life  will  be  gone,  while  if  he  does  not  the  rest  will 
complain  of  him  as  miserly.  In  that  group  there  is 
no  place  for  a  rich  man,  for  he  cannot  really  take 
the  place  of  a  disciple  just  Hke  all  the  rest,  following 
Jesus  only.  So  when  he  asks,  "What  lack  I  yttT* 
it  is  nothing  strange  that  Jesus  answers,  "  Sell  every- 
thing, give  the  money  to  the  poor,  and  then  come 
and  be  my  follower.''  But  the  test  shows  that  the 
external  difficulty  is  not  the  greatest.  It  reveals  the 
man  himself  as  incapable  of  the  necessary  act.  He 
has  great  wealth,  which  he  loves  and  cannot  bring 
himself  to  part  with.  "His  countenance  fell  at  that 
saying,  and  he  went  away  sorrowful;  for  he  was  one 
that  had  great  possessions." 

In  his  comment  Jesus  has  nothing  to  say  about  the 
external  conditions,  but  goes  straight  to  the  moral 
difficulty  within.  "With  what  difficulty  shall  a  rich 
man  enter  the  kingdom  of  God!"  It  is  impossible. 
This  young  man  most  vividly  illustrates  the  impos- 
sibility. It  ought  to  be  needless  to  say  that  by  the 
kingdom  of  God  here  is  not  meant  a  future  heaven: 
it  means  the  life  that  here  and  now  responds  to  the 
dominion  of  God's  will.  He  could  not  enter,  be- 
cause his  riches  were  too  nearly  a  part  of  him;  he 
took  his  temper  from  them;  they  determined  what 
kind  of  life  he  must  live;  he  was  not  ready  to  detach 


250  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

himself  from  them  and  become  a  simple  disciple 
to  Jesus  and  an  equal  brother  to  poor  men.  The 
kingdom  was  of  one  temper  and  he  of  another.  As 
this  rich  man  could  not  enter,  so  it  naturally  would 
be  with  any  rich  man;  the  spirit  of  devotion  to 
wealth  was  incompatible  with  the  lowly  and  unselfish 
spirit  of  the  kingdom.  This  was  news  to  the  disci- 
ples, who  had  never  met  the  question  before,  and  it 
is  no  wonder  that  they  asked  in  amazement,  "Who, 
then,  can  be  saved?"  But  though  Jesus  admitted 
that  to  God  even  this  great  change  was  possible,  he 
asserted  still  that  so  far  as  human  considerations  go 
it  is  impossible  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  kingdom 
of  God.     The  two  tempers  are  irreconcilable. 

If  we  accept  a  very  probable  textual  reading,  we 
have  in  the  second  Gospel  a  still  more  searching 
statement  of  this  great  difficulty.  After  he  has  said, 
"How  hard  it  is  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  the  kingdom 
of  God!"  and  the  disciples  have  expressed  their 
amazement,  Jesus  adds  with  sad  emphasis,  "Chil- 
dren, how  hard  it  is  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  God!" 
The  difficulty  is  not  all  due  to  riches:  it  is  the  great 
human  difficulty,  exhibited  by  the  rich  in  its  extreme 
form,  but  common  to  man.  The  kingdom  is  hard  to 
enter.  The  temper  of  pride — self-sufficiency  and  un- 
brotherly  isolation — is  a  human  temper,  race-wide,  and 
it  is  a  bar  that  must  be  removed  before  the  kingdom 
can  be  entered.  The  trouble  with  wealth  is  that  it 
gives  the  greatest  opportunity  to  this  anti-Christian 
spirit.  So  the  young  man  as  an  object-lesson  con- 
cerning wealth  gives  warning  to  all  mankind.     The 


WEALTH  251 

meaning  is  not  that  money  is  necessarily  an  enemy 
to  God  and  cannot  be  used  for  him.  It  is  that 
the  money  ideal  and  the  ideal  of  God  are  incom- 
patible, and  it  is  only  by  being  cured  of  his  devotion 
to  the  one  that  a  man  can  become  loyal  to  the  other. 

There  is  a  single  word  that  expresses  much  of 
Jesus'  judgment  concerning  wealth.  In  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  parable  of  the  Sower,  among  the 
forces  that  correspond  to  thorn-roots  in  the  soil 
choking  the  growth  of  the  good  seed,  is  counted 
**the  deceitfulness  of  riches."  Here  is  a  quality  that 
goes  far  to  justify  the  various  warnings.  Among  the 
dangers  of  wealth  is  its  power  to  blind  men  to  its 
dangers  and  mislead  them  by  its  promises.  Wealth 
is  the  greatest  of  self-commenders,  and  it  often  lures 
men  on  by  painting  a  future  which  it  cannot  create. 
It  seems  good  to  have,  and  in  many  respects,  of 
course,  it  is  good  to  have.  But  it  promises  useful- 
ness that  it  does  not  bring  forth.  It  encourages 
gracious  motives  to  remain  in  its  company,  and 
promises  them  large  exercise,  but  represses  them 
when  it  has  got  the  power.  It  proposes  to  a  man 
that  he  shall  be  its  master,  but  it  becomes  his  mas- 
ter, and  holds  tyrannical  power  over  him  by  becom- 
ing a  necessity  to  him  and  imposing  upon  him  a 
thousand  new  necessities.  It  persuades  a  man  to 
justify  the  self-indulgence  into  which  it  leads  him 
and  the  selfish  isolation  from  humanity  which  it 
promotes.  It  encourages  its  owner  in  manifold  self- 
deception  as  to  his  own  heart.     It  does  not  do  all 


252  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

this  for  every  one  who  holds  it,  but  this  deceitfulness 
belongs  to  it,  and  the  opportunity  stands  wide  open. 
Moreover,  to  the  deceitfulness  of  wealth  it  is  not 
necessary  that  one  should  possess  it.  It  deceives  the 
poor  as  well  as  the  rich.  By  an  attractiveness  that 
conceals  the  moral  dangers  it  often  corrupts  those 
who  do  not  possess  it.  It  makes  them  in  love  with 
false  and  injurious  standards  of  hfe.  It  convinces  a 
seeker  for  it  that  he  is  specially  exempt  from  the  per- 
ils of  the  seeking.  It  stands  as  an  end,  and  claims 
to  justify  many  an  unworthy  and  sinful  means.  All 
this,  of  course,  Jesus  did  not  specify,  but  long  experi- 
ence has  shown  that  he  did  well  to  speak  warningly  of 
**the  deceitfulness  of  riches."  Devotion  to  wealth, 
as  an  object  in  life,  stands  in  contrast  to  his  ideal  of 
clear  straightforwardness  in  seeking  a  high  end. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  Jesus 
never  utters  any  warning  against  the  perils  of  pov- 
erty. No  Gospel  represents  him  as  dwelling  on  the 
spiritual  dangers  of  the  poor.  While  the  rich  are 
barred  from  the  kingdom  in  so  far  as  they  are  gov- 
erned by  self-satisfaction  and  unbrotherly  isolation 
from  men,  he  conceives  of  the  poor  as  prepared  in 
some  degree  for  the  kingdom  by  their  comparative 
simplicity  of  heart  and  freedom  from  false  self- 
estimate.  Yet  there  are  grave  moral  dangers  for 
the  poor,  as  he  must  have  known.  Poverty  not  only 
works  injury  through  limitation  and  the  loss  of  valu- 
able opportunities,  but  it  brings  its  temptations 
to  envy  and  bitterness  of  spirit,  and  to  unworthy 
efforts  to  better  one's  condition.     But  Jesus  seems  to 


WEALTH  253 

have  considered  the  harm  wrought  by  poverty  less 
grounded  in  the  will  than  that  which  is  wrought  by 
wealth,  and  the  poor,  consequently,  less  in  need  of 
warning  than  the  rich. 

Twice — though  one  of  the  cases  was  as  far  as  pos- 
sible from  that  of  wealth — Jesus  saw  persons  using 
their  possessions  in  ways  that  he  could  warmly  com- 
mend. There  was  a  poor  widow  who  cast  into  the 
temple  treasury  her  contribution  for  the  divine  ser- 
vice. It  was  the  least  of  the  offerings  that  were  made, 
and  the  gifts  of  the  rich  buried  it  in  the  box;  but  he 
declared  it  to  be  the  greatest  gift  of  them  all.  It 
was  the  greatest  in  proportion  to  what  the  giver  had, 
and  it  represented  the  largest  and  freest  impulse  to 
give.  In  the  most  of  the  offerings  there  was  no  self- 
sacrifice  at  all,  but  this  one  had  self-sacrifice  for  its 
very  life.  So  the  spirit  that  inspired  it  was  identical 
with  the  spirit  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Here  was 
not  only  giving,  but  self-giving.  The  clear  eye  of 
Jesus  saw  beauty  where  ordinary  eyes  saw  an  ordi- 
nary gift  of  trifling  consequence,  and  he  bore  testi- 
mony to  the  value  of  such  generosity.  When  money 
was  given  for  a  good  use  he  would  see  it  given 
freely,  in  a  spirit  that  did  not  closely  count  the  cost. 
Gifts  out  of  superfluity  had  no  beauty  in  comparison 
with  gifts  out  of  necessity,  bestowed  because  the 
heart  would  offer  them. 

In  very  different  conditions  a  similar  lesson  came 
out  again.  At  Bethany,  just  before  the  end  of  his 
life,  a  woman  brought  a  flask  of  ointment  intended 


254  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

for  the  toilet,  very  costly,  broke  it,  and  poured  the 
ointment  upon  his  head.  His  disciples,  utilitarian  to 
the  core,  thought  this  sinfully  extravagant,  since  the 
ointment  might  have  brought  enough  to  give  large 
help  to  the  poor.  But  Jesus  felt  the  real  meaning 
of  the  act.  What  had  happened  was  not  merely  the 
outpouring  of  ointment;  it  was  an  outpouring  of  the 
heart.  The  act  was  a  giving  of  value  for  love's  sake, 
going  beyond  the  range  of  ordinary  reasons.  There 
was  a  fine  impulsiveness  about  it  that  Jesus  recog- 
nized with  joy,  a  beautiful  generosity  that  counted 
nothing  too  fine  to  be  used  for  the  heart's  satisfac- 
tion. The  outburst  of  a  freely  giving  spirit  delighted 
him.  He  had  a  welcome  too  for  the  insight  that 
would  discern  an  opportunity  of  love,  and  the  zeal 
that  would  seize  it.  This  was  the  only  moment. 
Kindness  to  the  poor  was  a  part  of  the  ordinary  life, 
to  be  counted  upon  as  a  matter  of  course  in  the 
common  round;  but  his  own  presence  with  those 
who  loved  him  was  temporary,  and  now  was  near 
its  end.  Here  was  a  loving  heart  that  dimly  fore- 
saw the  end,  and  could  not  hold  back  its  costly 
tribute.  Others  might  condemn,  Jesus  would  con- 
gratulate. If  we  follow  his  leading  here  we  shall 
see  that  his  ideal  has  room  for  a  glad  impulsiveness 
in  the  gracious  use  of  one's  possessions,  as  well  as 
for  a  well-directed  judgment.  Freeness  has  beauty 
in  his  sight.  This  is  no  new  lesson  indeed,  for 
the  good  Samaritan  is  represented  as  rushing  to  his 
helpful  work,  with  good  judgment  and  yet  with  a 
generous  zest.     If  a  man  has  something  that  he  can 


WEALTH  255 

use  beyond  himself,  Jesus  would  see  him  not  its 
slave,  but  its  master,  not  narrowed  by  it  into  a  cal- 
culator of  how  little  he  may  do,  but  pouring  it  out 
generously  at  his  own  strong  impulse.  Apparently 
he  would  be  quite  willing  that  a  free  heart  should 
sometimes  be  run  away  with  by  its  eagerness  to  bless. 
Better  too  much  than  too  little. 

To  sum  up  in  a  statement  or  two  what  Jesus  has 
said  about  wealth  is  no  easy  matter.  Many  have 
thought  that  he  condemned  the  holding  of  property 
altogether;  but  it  does  not  seem  likely  that  in  the 
long  run  this  will  be  understood  to  have  been  his 
intention.  Probably  property-holding  in  itself  will 
stand  the  test  of  his  judgment.  But  of  course  it 
must  be  added  that  when  his  ideal  comes  to  have 
due  influence  property-holding  will  be  a  very  differ- 
ent thing  from  what  it  is  now.  His  influence  would 
bring  it  under  the  control  of  righteousness  and 
brotherhood,  required  both  by  sound  ethics  and  by 
the  Christian  mind.  It  seems  more  like  Christ  that 
the  ideal  of  righteousness  and  brotherhood  should 
be  attained  through  learning  the  right  use  of  wealth 
than  through  the  abolition  of  it. 

We  may  ask  whether  Jesus  must  be  understood 
to  condemn  vast  fortunes  and  the  owners  of  them. 
No,  not  directly.  He  condemns  no  man  for  what 
he  is  not  guilty  of,  and  certainly  not  every  possessor 
of  a  vast  fortune  is  to  be  blamed  for  having  it. 
Even  {{  it  be  true  that  in  the  accumulation  of  every 
vast  fortune  there  has  been  something  wrong,  still  it 


256  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

is  not  all  the  fault  of  the  one  man  who  holds  the 
fortune.  It  may  be  partly  his  fault,  but  it  may  be 
partly  the  fault  of  other  men,  and  it  is  largely  the 
fault  of  what  we  call  the  system,  the  prevailing  order 
of  life,  which  is  chargeable  to  the  mingled  good  and 
evil  of  human  nature.  But  we  must  not  doubt  for 
a  moment  that  the  spirit  of  Jesus  disapproves  an 
order  of  life  in  which  the  accumulation  of  vast  for- 
tunes is  provided  for,  and  stands  as  a  natural  and 
normal  thing.  His  ideal  would  not  tolerate  condi- 
tions that  work  out  by  their  own  nature  into  so 
unequal  a  distribution  of  property.  A  thoroughly 
Christian  world  would  be  unhke  the  present  order 
on  both  sides;  there  would  be  none  so  poor  and  none 
so  rich  as  there  are  now.  Christ  inspiring  a  social 
order  would  maintain  a  better  equality,  an4  would 
do  it  not  through  some  artificial  and  formal  recon- 
struction, but  through  the  steady  and  effective  work- 
ing of  the  Christian  motives. 

But  the  moral  effect  of  Jesus'  teaching  about 
wealth  is  plain  enough.  He  does  not  assert  that 
wealth  is  by  everlasting  necessity  inconsistent  with 
his  ideal,  but  he  does  represent  that  wealth  is  fitted 
by  its  nature  to  be  an  active  foe  of  his  ideal,  and 
bids  men  beware  of  allowing  it  to  do  its  hostile  work. 
He  declares  that  the  ordinary  spirit  of  a  rich  man, 
devoted  to  his  wealth  and  governed  by  it,  is  incom- 
patible with  the  spirit  that  the  kingdom  of  God 
requires.  He  throws  strong  light  upon  the  man- 
ner in  which  wealth  may  render  a  man  selfish,  self- 
indulgent,  self-satisfied,  and  indiflTerent  to  his  fellows. 


WEALTH  257 

In  the  golden  rule  he  sets  up  a  standard  of  life  of 
which  wealth  easily  tends  to  make  men  oblivious; 
and  in  his  insistence  upon  human  value  he  enters 
another  field  in  which  wealth,  ignoring  the  worth 
of  men,  is  apt  to  be  a  power  of  wrong.  He  points 
out  the  deceitfulness  by  which  wealth  bhnds  men 
to  its  dangers.  In  his  teaching  as  a  whole,  wealth 
appears  as  a  powerful  soHcitor  to  the  lowering  of 
the  high  aim  and  the  abandonment  of  the  ideal  of  the 
kingdom. 

The  judgment  that  declares  a  rich  man  unable  to 
enter  the  kingdom  is  not  final,  however,  because  to 
God  all  things  are  possible.  Divine  grace,  which 
can  work  wonders,  can  overcome  this  human  im- 
possibility and  impart  a  spirit  that  will  master  the 
temptation  and  hold  wealth  in  the  spirit  of  the  king- 
dom. It  becomes  all  who  are  tempted  by  money 
in  any  way  to  seek  the  dominion  of  this  new  spir- 
it, for  certainly  Jesus  exhibits  the  fact  of  wealth  in 
the  world  as  a  manifold  menace  to  his  ideal  and 
peril  to  the  souls  of  men.  He  makes  us  feel  that  it 
is  easier  for  a  man's  character  to  be  ruined  by 
wealth  than  by  poverty,  and  easier  for  wealth  to 
ruin  its  possessor  than  to  make  him  a  blessing.  He 
has  not  spoken  of  wealthy  Christians,  but  we  come 
away  from  his  teaching  with  the  impression  that  if 
a  man  is  to  prosper  as  a  Christian  while  he  is  rich 
he  must  needs  have  a  double  portion  of  the  spirit 
of  God.  Wealth  can  be  used  for  the  kingdom,  and 
in  the  spirit  of  the  kingdom,  and  is  a  necessary  in- 
strument for  some  parts  of  the  kingdom's  work;  but 


258  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

there  are  mighty  powers  enhsted  against  its  best  use- 
fulness, and  only  through  fulness  of  Christian  grace 
can  its  good  work  be  done.  The  hope  is  that  the 
redemptive  power  of  God  will  win  the  victory  over 
the  hostile  force  and  convert  wealth  into  a  friend. 

The  spirit  of  Jesus  certainly  has  nothing  but  con- 
demnation for  that  great  wave  of  money-love  which 
has  swept  over  Christendom  in  our  time,  affecting 
all  classes  of  the  people.  It  has  fostered  self-indul- 
gence, brightened  the  charm  of  luxury,  added  to  the 
zest  of  fashion,  reinforced  the  impulse  to  gambHng, 
stimulated  depraved  appetites,  corrupted  business 
and  politics,  brought  in  new  varieties  of  crime, 
oppressed  the  poor,  deepened  the  bondage  of  exces- 
sive labor,  increased  the  alienation  of  social  classes, 
materialized  the  popular  ideals,  weakened  religious 
influences,  and  made  heavenly  things  seem  far  away. 
From  this  craze  of  the  love  of  money  the  voice  of 
Jesus  calls  the  people  back  to  the  sane  life  in  ethics 
and  religion  in  which  he  is  leader. 


XIII 

CHRISTIANITY 

The  ideal  of  Jesus  sounds  out  in  his  words  and 
deeds,  and  we  have  Hstened  to  him  long  enough  to 
understand  of  what  sort  it  is.  I  have  not  been 
anxious  to  gather  in  every  utterance  that  might  help 
to  complete  the  story,  for  that  seemed  neither  pos- 
sible nor  necessary.  But  I  have  tried  so  to  interpret 
his  testimony  as  to  present  in  the  large  a  true  im- 
pression of  what  he  was  minded  to  offer  to  the  world. 
Incomplete  though  the  work  has  been,  I  feel  that 
enough  has  passed  before  us  to  show  what  man- 
ner of  ideal  for  human  Hfe  and  destiny  Jesus 
had  at  heart.  Imperfectly,  but  really,  we  can  see 
what  conception  of  the  highest  good  he  left  in  the 
world,  to  be  wrought  out  in  experience.  I  have  not 
gathered  it  up  into  a  summary  statement,  because  I 
was  waiting  to  use  it  at  this  point  for  a  practical 
purpose. 

Now,  after  nineteen  centuries,  the  Christian  peo- 
ple are  inquiring  once  again,  more  eagerly  than  ever, 
what  Christianity  really  is.  I  propose  that  in  the 
light  of  the  study  that  we  have  made  we  ask  Jesus 
himself  to  interpret  Christianity  for  us.  He  cer- 
tainly is  the  one  to  ask.     We  will  gather  up  his  ideal 

259 


260  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

as  well  as  we  can  into  unity  of  expression,  and  in- 
quire in  the  light  of  it  what  his  permanent  gift  to 
the  world  appears  to  be.  Christianity  exists  among 
us  and  within  us,  a  great  complex  fact,  which  has 
come  down  to  us  through  ages  from  him,  and  we 
desire  to  understand  it  better  in  order  that  we  may 
do  it  better  justice.  Our  own  life  is  waiting,  and 
the  world  is  waiting,  for  us  to  find  out  just  what  it  is. 
Ask  the  Master  himself.  Look  at  his  own  ideal  and 
judge  from  that  what  Christianity  must  be. 

The  search  is  often  prosecuted  in  another  way, 
not  so  good  as  this.  It  is  a  common  practice  to 
study  Christianity  as  we  observe  it,  and  try  to  gather 
the  sum  of  it  into  a  single  definition.  The  defining 
of  Christianity  is  an  enterprise  upon  which  many 
have  labored.  I  have  tried  the  experiment  more 
than  once,  in  the  hope  that  in  some  single  statement 
I  might  be  able  to  set  forth  the  essence  of  Chris- 
tianity— a  favorite  name  for  that  which  we  are  seek- 
ing. But  I  have  always  found  two  difficulties  that 
I  could  not  overcome.  One  was  that  in  any  compact 
expression  that  I  might  frame  very  much  had  to  be 
implied  which  I  had  no  room  to  express,  but  which 
needed  to  be  expressed  if  I  was  to  make  a  good  defi- 
nition. I  could  not  get  it  all  in.  My  brief  clauses 
rested  on  unseen  foundations,  which,  however,  were 
too  essential  to  the  purpose  to  be  left  unseen.  This 
is  a  difficulty  that  all  defining  is  Hable  to  encounter, 
but  in  the  present  case  it  assumed  such  proportions 
as  to  defeat  the  entire  attempt.     It  means  that  from 


CHRISTIANITY  261 

the  interior  nature  of  the  case  a  satisfactory  single 
definition  is  impossible:  Christianity  contains  too 
much  to  be  gathered  up  in  a  definition.  If  I  con- 
fine myself  to  its  pecuHarities  or  special  points,  I 
omit  the  underlying  principles,  without  which  they 
are  not  properly  accounted  for;  but  if  I  fill  my  state- 
ment with  the  underlying  principles,  I  cannot  set  the 
pecuHarities  of  Christianity  in  the  right  perspective. 
If  I  try  to  include  the  whole,  my  statement  becomes 
too  large  and  cumbrous  to  serve  the  purpose  of  a 
definition. 

I  encountered  a  similar  difficulty  in  defining  Chris- 
tianity when  it  was  viewed  in  a  more  external  light. 
It  is  a  jewel  of  many  facets.  It  appeals  to  various 
minds  in  various  ways,  and  in  differing  conditions 
it  takes  forms  that  cannot  all  be  justly  represented 
by  a  single  statement.  If  I  framed  a  definition  and 
tried  to  test  it  by  comparing  it  with  facts,  I  kept 
finding  expressions  or  aspects  of  Christianity  to 
which  it  did  not  well  apply,  or  for  which  it  did  not 
make  sufficient  provision.  There  were  sure  to  be 
Christians  who  would  not  recognize  what  I  set  be- 
fore them.  I  felt  certain  that  I  must  have  thought 
out  only  a  provincial  definition;  another  man  might 
make  another  equally  good  and  equally  defective. 
In  its  actual  development  Christianity  is  too  large 
and  various  a  thing  to  be  sufficiently  characterized 
by  any  single  statement.  Even  if  I  discern  its  cen- 
tral characteristic  aright,  that  by  itself  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  form  a  definition. 

So,  after  many  experiments,  I  finally  gave  over  the 


262  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

attempt.  I  must  report,  too,  that  what  I  discovered 
in  my  own  experience  has  been  confirmed  by  my 
observation  of  other  men's  work.  Many  beautiful 
and  enhghtening  expressions  have  been  reached  in 
the  effort  to  define  Christianity,  and  some  of  them 
are  very  dear  to  me,  but  as  definitions  they  are  dis- 
appointing. Either  they  leave  impHed  much  that 
needs  to  be  expressed  if  a  definition  is  to  serve  its 
purpose,  or  they  present  some  one  aspect  of  Chris- 
tianity and  do  injustice  to  others  equally  important. 
The  result  of  it  all  has  been  that  I  have  ceased  to 
expect  justice  to  be  done  to  Christianity  by  a  defini- 
tion. It  is  wise  and  profitable  to  multiply  descrip- 
tive statements,  and  to  make  them  as  correct  and 
rich  and  comprehensive  as  possible,  for  these  may 
finely  commend  it,  calling  attention  to  its  manifold 
truth  and  beauty;  but  it  is  hopeless  to  attempt  to 
gather  the  whole  great  meaning  into  a  sentence  or  a 
group  of  phrases. 

I  am  glad,  therefore,  to  be  engaged  in  a  study  that 
suggests  another  method.  We  have  been  listening 
to  Jesus;  now  we  will  ask  him  what  Christianity  is. 
We  will  project  the  lines  from  his  ideal  and  see  what 
they  enclose.  We  will  question  his  large  view  of  life 
as  to  what  the  religion  is  that  came  forth  from  him. 
He  never  talked  of  any  religion  at  all,  as  we  name  it, 
coming  forth  from  him,  but  one  did  come  forth,  and 
in  his  large  utterance  of  the  best  that  he  knew  and 
the  best  that  he  desired  he  has  given  us  means  of 
judging  what  it  is.  If  we  are  deeply  in  doubt  as  to 
its  nature,  it  is  because  we  have  not  sufficiently 


CHRISTIANITY  263 

consulted  the  Master  —  or  if  we  have  consulted 
him,  we  have  not  heard  him  through  when  he 
answered  us. 

The  present  question,  therefore,  is,  What,  judging 
from  what  we  have  learned  to  be  the  ideal  of  Jesus, 
shall  we  say  that  Christianity  is  ? 

If  we  follow  the  lines  of  the  ideal  of  Jesus,  we 
shall  have  no  difficulty  in  seeing  that  Christianity, 
springing  from  him,  is  first  of  all  a  life.  It  is  a  life 
as  good  as  life  can  be  made,  in  all  the  three  great 
relations,  namely,  toward  God,  in  one's  self,  and 
toward  other  men. 

The  most  striking  fact  about  the  ideal  of  Jesus  is 
that  it  is  so  thoroughly  a  vital  and  practical  ideal. 
It  is  a  working  ideal,  to  be  realized  by  living  men 
in  real  character  and  conduct.  It  is  no  dream,  no 
poetical  fancy,  no  vision  in  the  clouds.  If  Jesus 
walks  with  his  head  in  the  heavens,  his  feet  are 
always  on  the  earth.  His  ideal  is  as  present  and 
practical  as  an  ideal  of  perfection  in  a  handicraft. 
His  work  has  no  place  except  in  life.  We  cannot 
have  studied  his  utterances  without  being  aware  of 
this.  He  does  not  even  teach  men  a  doctrine  of 
life:  he  simply  teaches  them  to  live.  This  is  a  clear 
and  unquestionable  deduction  from  all  that  we  have 
been  studying  about  what  he  said  and  did.  Was 
it  not  always  his  aim  to  give  men  principles  to  act 
upon,  and  inspire  heart  and  will  to  action  I  Was  it 
not  his  purpose  that  truth  in  the  inward  parts  should 
work  itself  out  in  all  virtue  and  godliness,  righteous- 


264  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

ness,  and  helpful  work  ?     What  he  had  in  view  was 
action,  living  response,  the  soul  at  work. 

Look  back  at  what  we  have  already  seen  in  this 
study.  When  we  looked  at  the  picture  of  the  high 
aim  that  was  shown  us  in  his  temptation  and  his 
ministry,  we  beheld  Jesus  himself  as  a  living  soul, 
meeting  the  facts  of  life,  Hving  in  the  midst  of 
them  as  God's  own  Son,  and  winning  a  concrete 
victory  on  the  field  of  life.  When  he  spoke  of  the 
kingdom  of  God,  he  spoke  of  a  spirit  and  manner 
of  life  that  was  entering  this  present  world,  to  trans- 
form personal  character,  to  make  religion  vital,  and 
to  fill  society  with  self-devoting  service.  When  he 
discoursed  of  righteousness,  he  did  not  lay  down  a 
doctrine  of  its  nature  or  give  scholastic  instruction 
about  the  way  to  obtain  it:  he  spoke  to  living  men 
who  needed  it  but  had  false  ideas  of  it,  and  told 
them  what  character  it  consisted  in,  and  in  what 
kind  of  conduct  they  must  put  it  in  practice. 
When  he  talked  of  love  to  God  and  the  neighbor, 
he  was  not  laying  down  a  doctrine,  but  was  pro- 
claiming the  spirit  in  which  men  must  needs  live  in 
the  secret  heart  and  in  the  open  daylight,  in  the 
hour  of  prayer  and  in  the  day  of  neighborly  service. 
When  he  expounded  the  filial  life  with  God  as 
Father,  he  was  simply  exhibiting  the  normal  life  of 
man  in  its  eternal  connection  with  divine  reality, 
and  bringing  supreme  fulness  into  the  daily  round. 
When  he  gave  counsel  concerning  deliverance  from 
evil,  and  offered  it  to  men,  of  course  he  was  dealing 
with  nothing  else  than  actual  life;    he  touched  it 


CHRISTIANITY  265 

even  more  closely  and  deeply  than  If  he  had  spoken 
of  the  healing  of  disease.  When  he  instructed  his 
friends  about  the  liberty  of  the  sons  of  God,  he  was 
not  giving  them  a  doctrine  of  liberty,  but  v^as  actually 
setting  live  men  free  from  the  bondage  of  dead  institu- 
tions and  false  authorities.  It  is  from  his  imparta- 
tion  of  the  fact  of  liberty  that  we  draw  a  doctrine 
of  liberty.  When  he  taught  the  principle  of  human 
value,  and  insisted  upon  justice  in  human  dealings, 
he  was  teaching  men  how  to  live  together,  and  ele- 
vating their  life  by  the  breath  of  the  highest.  In  all 
that  he  said  of  wealth,  and  of  the  rich  and  the  poor, 
he  was  working  on  the  plane  of  the  common  world, 
dealing  with  tangible  things,  warning  against  vital 
temptations,  giving  object-lessons  of  daily  Hving.' 
In  all  his  teaching  he  was  teaching  men  to  live,  and 
by  his  bringing  near  of  the  reign  of  God  he  was 
inspiring  them  to  live,  offering  the  grace  of  God  as 
the  source  and  support  of  the  life  to  which  he  would 
lead  them. 

If  this  is  Jesus,  then  any  religion  that  comes  forth 
from  him  will  be,  first  of  all,  a  life — not  primarily  a 
doctrine  or  an  institution,  but  a  life  of  real  men  in 
their  real  relations.  We  need  not  have  gone  back 
to  his  ideal  for  support  of  such  a  statement,  however, 
for  religion  is  life.  Other  things  are  true  of  it,  but 
in  its  very  nature  all  real  religion  is  a  living,  experi- 
mental thing;  no  life,  no  rehgion.  He  could  not 
send  forth  a  religion  that  was  not  a  life.  Yet  the 
appeal  to  the  ideal  of  Jesus  Is  most  valuable,  for  it 
places  it  beyond  question  that  if  we  wish  to  under- 


266  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

stand  Christianity  we  must  approach  it  with  the 
conception  of  Hfe  at  the  front.  It  will  have  its  doc- 
trines, but  they  are  expositions  of  the  Hfe  and  of 
what  it  implies.  It  will  have  its  institutions,  but 
they  are  servants  of  the  life,  just  as  the  Sabbath  was 
made  for  man.  But  the  life  itself  will  be  the  central 
fact. 

''  In  briefly  describing  the  quality  of  the  life  that 
forms  the  heart  of  Christianity,  I  just  now  called  it 
life  as  good  as  life  can  be  made.  I  do  not  know 
how  to  set  forth  the  broad  and  high  intent  of  Jesus 
any  better.  If  we  follow  discerningly  through  his 
I  teaching  we  shall  say  that  he  counts  upon  making 
life  the  best  that  life  can  be — the  best  to-day  that 
is  possible  to-day,  and  the  best  that  is  possible  at 
all  when  all  is  done.  For  this  he  makes  provision. 
iThe  life  that  he  tells  of  is  a  life  of  man  in  God,  and 
the  divine  paternity  sustains  it  as  a  holy  life,  the 
Father's  character  pouring  its  quality  into  the  sons. 
God's  own  perfection  is  the  type  of  it,  and  the  impel- 
ling power.  So  the  central  principle  provides  for 
goodness  of%iny  and  every  kind,  and  makes  good- 
ness the  goal  and  expectation  of  every  child  of  God. 
This  quality  in  the  ideal  and  counsel  of  Jesus  has 
never  been  disputed:  Jesus  aimed  to  make  good  men; 
so  does  Christianity.  Good  men  living  well  the  best 
life — this  is  the  aim  of  the  religion  that  comes  forth 
from  Jesus. 

I  said  also,  in  my  brief  summary  statement,  that 
this  life,  which  is  as  good  as  life  can  be  made,  is 


CHRISTIANITY  267 

life  in  all  the  three  great  relations.  There  are  just 
three  great  relations  that  make  up  life  for  every  man, 
and  we  cannot  have  studied  the  ideal  of  Jesus  with- 
out perceiving  how  wonderfully  he  makes  provision 
for  them  all.  In  the  life  that  he  Hves  a  man  is  related 
to  God,  to  himself,  and  to  other  men.  There  are  no 
other  relations  to  be  counted;  these  make  up  life. 
Now,  the  life  that  Jesus  sets  forth  is  life  in  each  and 
all  of  these  relations,  and  in  each  of  them  it  is  the 
best  life  that  can  be.  Jesus  has  not  spoken  of  this 
in  scholastic  terms  or  proposed  this  analysis  of  life. 
But  if  we  have  followed  attentively  through  the  study 
of  his  words  we  have  heard  him  tell  most  clearly  and 
impressively  how  a  man  must  live  with  God,  how 
he  must  live  in  himself,  and  how  he  must  live  in  his 
relation  with  his  fellow-men.  And  we  know  that 
when  we  are  studying  life  in  these  three  relations  that 
Jesus  described  we  are  studying  the  life  that  is 
characteristic  of  Christianity,  since  Christianity  is 
his.  The  life  that  his  ideal  sets  forth  is  the  life  in 
which  Christianity  as  a  fact  in  the  world  consists. 
Therefore,  in  order  to  represent  Christianity  aright, 
we  must  summarize  the  testimony  of  Jesus  respect- 
ing the  true  life  in  the  three  great  relations. 

Toward  God,  it  is  a  Hfe  of  filial  trust  and  loyalty, 
the  life  of  a  child  in  the  divine  family.  It  is  a  life 
in  which  a  man  trusts  the  grace  of  God  to  deliver 
him  from  evil,  and  labors  with  it  loyally  to  that  end. 
A  life  of  undying  fidelity  to  God  the  Father  and  the 
Lord;  of  love  to  him  because  he  is  supremely  wor- 
thy;   of  love   that  finds  expression   not  merely  or 


268  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

mainly  in  worship  or  admiration,  but  more  in  delight 
in  all  outworkings  of  his  character  and  consecration 
to  the  doing  of  his  will.  A  life  in  which  the  Fath- 
er's character  is  welcomed  as  one's  inheritance,  the 
Father's  presence  is  light  and  joy,  and  the  Father's 
will  is  the  chosen  good.  It  is  a  hfe  of  hberty  under 
God's  sole  lordship,  and  one  in  which  the  free  effort 
of  the  entire  man  goes  out  toward  living  in  the 
Father's  character.  Such  is  Jesus'  ideal  of  the  life 
with  God.     Thus  he  lived  himself. 

In  one's  self,  it  is  a  Hfe  of  simple  and  genuine  good- 
ness. It  is  a  life  from  above,  not  born  of  this  world 
though  it  is  truly  human,  but  offspring  of  God  the 
Saviour  of  men.  A  life  of  deliverance  from  sin 
through  God's  free  grace  and  one's  own  strong 
striving.  A  life  simple,  lowly,  sincere,  genuine,  in 
which  there  is  no  pretence  but  honest  reality  before 
God,  and  virtue  is  one's  own.  A  life  not  governed 
by  external  rules  that  dictate  and  must  be  obeyed, 
but  directed  by  inward  principles  that  control  and 
affections  that  inspire.  In  one's  self,  by  a  most 
blessed  paradox,  it  is  a  life  in  which  self  is  least: 
it  is  devoted  to  ends  without  one's  self,  in  the  realm 
where  selfishness  does  not  rule.  A  life,  as  Jesus  him- 
self illustrates,  in  which  self-consciousness  is  scarcely 
more  than  a  means  to  something  better,  and  aspira- 
tion in  one's  own  behalf  is  but  a  minor  thing,  and 
the  self  with  all  that  it  includes  is  at  the  disposal  of 
God  and  men.  Here  is  its  true  innermost:  it  has 
learned  from  the  cross-bearing  Christ  the  lesson  of 
the  burden-bearing  God,  and  seeks  to  bear  his  like- 


CHRISTIANITY  2G9 

ness.  This  sympathy  with  the  redeeming  heart  of 
God  is  the  highest  goodness.  Such  is  Jesus'  ideal 
of  the  Hfe  that  a  man  should  live  in  himself. 

Toward  other  men,  we  see  at  once,  if  we  follow  on, 
it  is  a  life  of  love  and  of  the  helpfulness  of  love,  ani- 
mated by  eager  desire  to  do  good  and  the  highest 
good.  A  life  unselfish  and  self-sacrificing,  in  fellow- 
ship with  him  who  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto, 
but  to  minister;  hence  a  life  of  strong  social  im- 
pulse and  service.  A  life  aglow  with  the  sense  of 
human  value  in  sympathy  with  Jesus,  and  quick  to 
recognize  and  act  upon  it  in  all  relations;  responsive 
to  the  call  of  justice;  irrepressible  in  the  spirit  of 
help.  A  Hfe  not  narrow  or  short-sighted,  but  broad 
in  its  inclusion  of  the  many  kinds  of  helpfulness  and 
means  of  doing  good.  A  life  whose  impulses  recog- 
nize the  identity  of  the  call  of  men  with  the  call  of 
God  and  Christ,  and  whose  vital  breath  is  outgoing 
love.  In  it  divine  forgiveness,  cleansing  from  sin, 
the  uplift  of  hope,  and  the  personal  welfare  and  vic- 
tory are  all  precious  for  their  own  sake,  but  precious 
also  and  still  more  because  they  release  and  empower 
the  soul  for  fellow-workmanship  with  God  in  saving 
men  and  bringing  in  the  kingdom  of  his  righteous- 
ness. Such  Is  Jesus'  Ideal  of  the  life  that  one  should 
live  in  relation  to  other  men.    Thus  he  lived  and  died. 

It  is  thus  a  life  of  union  and  fellowship  with  God 
and  his  Christ  in  all  goodness  of  character,  and  in 
self-devotion  to  the  good  of  men.  In  it  the  redeem- 
ing work  of  Christ  has  become  not  only  a  means  of 
personal  salvation,  but  a  revelation  of  God  In  heaven 


270  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

and  a  mastering  inspiration  for  service  on  earth.  It 
follows  the  King  who  has  gone  to  his  throne  through 
sacrifice.  And  in  everything  it  is  a  life  of  high  and 
steadfast  aim,  held  unswervingly  from  first  to  last, 
in  the  face  alike  of  threatening  and  allurement,  of  life 
and  death. 

I  think  this  is  a  fair  description  of  the  life  that 
Jesus  has  portrayed  for  us  as  his  ideal.  We  know 
that  Christianity  is  a  life,  and  one  that  corresponds 
to  the  ideal  of  its  Founder;  wherefore  we  may  be 
sure  that  we  are  now  in  the  way  of  finding  out  what 
it  really  is.  If  we  sum  up  this  testimony  of  Jesus, 
we  shall  say  that  Christianity  is  a  life,  toward  God 
of  filial  trust  and  loyalty,  in  one's  self  of  genuine 
goodness,  and  toward  men  of  self-sacrificing  helpful- 
ness, the  inner  principle  being  fellowship  with  God, 
who  loves  that  he  may  save.  This  is  not  a  definition 
of  Christianity,  but  I  offer  it  as  a  statement  of  the 
essential  nature  of  Christianity.  It  has  been  derived 
from  no  source  but  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself, 
and  it  is  a  fair  summary  of  his  testimony.  It  is  so 
true  that  we  cannot  conceive  of  replacing  it  by  any 
other  statement  differing  radically  from  it.  If  at 
heart  Christianity  is  something  different  from  this, 
then  our  sources  of  knowledge  concerning  it  are  alto- 
gether misleading.  It  is  safe,  therefore,  to  affirm 
that  the  vital  quality  of  Christianity  has  here  been 
truly  set  forth.  This  is  the  ideal  that  filled  the  soul 
of  Jesus:  this  is  the  ideal  that  he  cast  forth  into  the 
world  for  men  to  learn  and  live  by.  And  our  ac- 
count of  it  is  not  complete  until  we  have  said  that 


CHRISTIANITY  271 

Jesus  gave  it  forth  as  a  gift  of  almighty  God,  that 
the  realizing  of  it  in  human  life  is  the  enterprise  of 
God,  and  that  the  power  by  which  the  new  life  is  to 
be  produced,  maintained,  and  completed  is  the  gra- 
cious power  of  God.  Christianity  is  of  God,  and 
God  is  in  Christianity. 

In  the  comprehensiveness  and  completeness  of  this 
ideal  of  Jesus  we  find  a  lesson  concerning  the  range 
and  scope  of  Christianity.  If  it  corresponds  to  the 
ideal  of  Jesus,  Christianity  is  no  fractional  thing, 
applying  only  to  some  part  of  life.  It  covers  the 
whole.  All  parts,  aspects,  and  qualities  of  human 
life  are  included  here.  Jesus  has  spoken  to  us  con- 
cerning the  living  of  man  with  God,  or  the  religious 
life.  He  has  spoken  of  individual  character  and 
conduct,  or  the  ethical  life  in  the  personal  field.  He 
has  spoken,  too,  of  the  living  of  man  in  relation  with 
his  fellows,  or  the  social  life.  He  has  gathered  these 
three  into  an  effective  moral  unity,  pervading  them 
all  with  a  single  character  and  motive,  making  suc- 
cess in  each  essential  to  success  in  the  others.  His 
ideal  life  is  a  life  that  is  totally  Christian,  Christian 
throughout.  All  its  standards  are  Christian,  and  all 
its  activities  are  inspired  by  the  Christian  heart  and 
mind.  There  are  no  omitted  places.  He  sees  life 
whole,  and  designs  to  make  it  whole.  Christian  alto- 
gether. We  do  injustice,  therefore,  to  him  and  his 
religion  if  we  ever  think  of  Christianity  as  a  stream 
flowing  through  the  field  of  life,  or  as  a  department 
of  our  existence,  or  as  an  influence  that  is  intended 


272  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

to  afFect  a  certain  part  of  our  character  and  conduct. 
Very  often  it  has  been  represented  so;  the  name 
Christian  has  been  confined  to  that  which  is  dis- 
tinctly and  technically  religious.  Once  for  all  we 
must  drop  that  usage  and  habit  of  thought  if  we  are 
to  follow  the  ideal  of  Jesus.  When  we  have  learned 
of  him  we  shall  think  of  Christianity  as  a  power  that 
penetrates  and  transforms  the  whole  of  life.  All 
character  is  to  be  Christian  character,  all  activities 
are  to  become  Christian  activities.  No  longer  is 
any  part  of  life  secular  as  contrasted  with  sacred, 
for  the  secular  is  sacred;  no  longer  is  any  part  ethical 
as  distinct  from  religious,  for  the  ethical  is  religious; 
no  longer  is  any  part  exempt  from  the  one  all-per- 
vading quality  and  power.  Life  is  not  divided;  now 
alone  has  it  become  one. 

The  ideal  of  Jesus  shows  us  with  equal  clearness 
that  Christianity  is  no  fractional  thing  with  refer- 
ence to  its  relation  to  the  human  race.  As  life  is 
not  divided,  so  neither  is  humanity.  In  the  thought 
of  God  it  is  sent  forth  as  his  gift  to  all  men.  We 
cannot  think  otherwise  when  we  compare  the  life 
that  Jesus  has  portrayed  with  human  nature.  The 
truth  is  that  the  ideal  of  Jesus  represents  the  normal 
human  life.  This  is  the  life  to  which  man  is  adapted, 
and  in  which  his  natural  destiny  can  be  attained. 
Life  rightly  and  happily  grounded  in  God,  life  full  of 
all  goodness  in  itself,  life  unselfishly  devoted  to  the 
good  of  all — there  is  nothing  better  than  this:  this 
is  the  ideal  and  normal  human  existence.  Life  is 
not  normal  with  any  part  of  this  left  out.     This  is  as 


CHRISTIANITY  273 

good  for  one  man  as  for  another,  and  for  one  tribe 
or  nation  as  for  another.  It  is  not  good  for  any  part 
of  humanity  to  be  without  it.  Bent  upon  lower  aims 
and  cherishing  lower  tastes,  men  may  often  think 
they  want  something  else,  but  what  they  really  want 
IS  the  religion,  the  character  and  the  consecration 
that  Christianity  proposes.  The  Christianity  of  Jesus 
is  universal  in  its  adaptation.  But  we  know  that  a 
God  who  has  provided  a  gift  of  normality  for  his 
creatures  cannot  have  provided  it  with  merely  a  frac- 
tion of  them  in  his  mind.  He  has  not  divided  the 
race  of  man  into  parts,  and  determined  that  only 
a  fraction  of  them  can  be  allowed  to  have  the  gift. 
God  means  Christianity  impartially;  that  which  he 
has  adapted  to  all  men  he  has  addressed  to  all  men. 
"God  so  loved  the  world."  It  is  therefore  no  inci- 
dental fact  that  Christianity  is  a  missionary  religion. 
The  impulse  to  extend  itself  and  impart  itself  is  of 
its  very  life.  They  who  have  received  so  inestimable 
a  gift  of  God  and  have  no  impulse  to  bring  the  same 
to  others  have  not  really  received  it  for  what  it  is, 
but  have  misunderstood  it;  they  have  discerned  some 
of  its  points,  but  its  great  vital  point  they  have  not 
seen.  When  Christianity  is  rightly  grasped,  there 
is  no  need  of  special  commands  to  create  missionary 
duty.  The  missionary  impulse  is  of  Christianity 
itself.  The  normal  religion  for  mankind  cannot  be 
kept  in  a  corner. 

Native  to  Christianity  is  the  impulse  to  do  good  of 
every  kind  to  men  of  every  kind.     We  have  been 


274  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

speaking  of  the  two  great  unities,  unity  of  life  and 
unity  of  mankind,  that  are  contemplated  in  the  ideal 
of  Jesus.  In  the  same  ideal  these  two  are  blended 
in  a  great  unity  of  fellowship  and  help,  world-wide  in 
its  range,  and  wide  as  human  need  in  its  variety. 
All  kinds  of  service  for  the  good  of  mankind  are  con- 
templated by  Christianity,  suggested  by  the  Chris- 
tian motive,  and  fostered  by  Christian  influence. 
This  has  not  always  been  perceived  or  believed  in, 
and  works  of  help  for  humanity  have  often  been 
divided  into  classes  and  reckoned  as  Christian  and 
non-Christian;  but  it  is  only  by  misunderstanding 
that  they  can  be  classified  thus.  Christianity  is  the 
parent  and  impeller  of  effort  of  every  kind  to  do 
good  to  men.  Nothing  human  is  foreign  to  its 
heart.  The  absolute  universality  of  its  field  of  use- 
fulness cannot  be  denied  or  doubted  if  our  judgment 
is  guided  by  the  ideal  of  Jesus.  Christians  have  no 
right  to  look  askance  at  any  endeavor  to  do  good  to 
men,  as  if  it  were  not  of  their  kin  and  company. 
Christian  fellowship  has  often  been  taken  to  be  fel- 
lowship in  doctrinal  belief,  or  even  in  churchly  prac- 
tice. Better  far,  it  has  been  found  in  experience  of 
the  great  salvation,  in  common  prayer  and  praise, 
in  mutual  affection,  in  one  faith  on  earth  and  one 
hope  of  heaven.  This  is  all  genuine,  but  the  fellow- 
ship that  is  most  profoundly  Christian  is  fellowship 
with  Jesus  in  the  spirit  and  practice  of  doing  good. 
Christians  are  in  deepest  fellowship  when  they  are 
comrades  of  the  cross  with  Christ  and  one  another, 
in  self-sacrificing  usefulness.     It  is  on  the  cross  that 


CHRISTIANITY  275 

Jesus  shows  us  what  his  spirit  is,  and  the  cross  is 
not  only  the  symbol  of  self-giving  love,  but  the  sum- 
mons to  fellowship  in  the  same. 

The  life  that  thus  constitutes  Christianity  is  a 
life  of  salvation;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  a  life  of 
human  beings  who  have  been  and  are  being  saved 
by  God  out  of  evil  into  the  goodness  for  which 
they  were  created.  It  is  a  life  in  which  such  sal- 
vation is  going  on,  and  in  which  salvation  gives  its 
tone  of  joy  and  hope  and  power  to  the  common  ex- 
perience. 

I  have  said  that  whoever  looks  at  the  ordinary  life 
of  mankind  and  then  at  the  ideal  life  according  to 
Jesus  will  know  that  between  the  two  as  facts  there 
must  lie  a  deliverance  from  evil.  As  Jesus  testifies, 
God  is  the  Saviour  of  men,  and  man  works  together 
with  God  in  his  salvation.  The  Christian  life  is  one 
in  which  this  work  of  God  is  going  on,  and  man's 
work  with  it,  and  men  are  growing  in  the  true  char- 
acter of  sons  of  God.  The  Christian  experience  is 
not  precisely  the  same  to  any  two  persons,  but  it  is 
alike  to  all  in  being  an  experience  of  salvation.  Ac- 
cordingly it  is  full  of  vitality.  God's  forgiveness  of 
sins  is  in  it,  received  by  faith.  God  himself  is  in  it, 
the  Father.  Sense  of  new  Hfe  is  in  it,  exhilarating. 
New  love  of  goodness  is  in  it,  transforming.  Love  is 
in  it,  cheering  the  heart  and  sustaining  all  good  en- 
deavor. Hope  is  in  it,  for  this  life  and  that  which  is 
to  come.  It  opens  out  everywhere  into  the  infinite 
and  eternal,  and  the  joy  of  God  belongs  to  it.     This 


276  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

incomparable  quality  varies  in  all  possible  degrees 
because  of  human  weakness  or  limitation,  but  by  its 
nature  the  life  that  constitutes  Christianity  has  the 
vigor  of  newness,  the  strength  of  confidence,  the 
glow  of  joy,  the  sense  of  being  the  best  life  that 
can  be. 

This  life,  with  its  triumphant  quality  as  a  life  of 
salvation,  rightly  bears  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
by  whom  it  has  been  estabHshed  as  a  living  fact. 
Looking  upon  him  we  do  not  merely  see  his  visible 
self;  he  stands  for  God.  In  him  God  has  been 
manifested  in  the  flesh;  that  is,  in  him  God  has  been 
clearly  expressed  to  men  upon  the  very  plane  of  their 
life.  He  has  revealed  the  saving  love  of  the  holy 
God,  and  rendered  it  effective  in  the  new  divine  life. 
All  the  untold  sum  of  Christian  good  stands  identi- 
fied with  him,  and  he  must  always  stand  as  the  rep- 
resentative of  the  religion  and  the  salvation.  Jesus 
is  the  messenger  of  the  grace  that  saves,  the  bearer 
of  our  sins  in  our  sight  as  God  is  the  bearer  of  our 
sins  beyond  our  sight,  the  evidence  that  real  redemp- 
tion is  actually  wrought  for  us  through  divine  self- 
sacrifice,  the  Word  of  God  uttering  salvation,  the 
brother  with  divine  heart  breaking  with  the  love  that 
it  bears,  the  Hving  embodiment  of  the  character  that 
salvation  works,  the  winner  of  men  into  fellowship 
with  God,  the  King  who  goes  to  his  throne  bearing 
his  cross  and  empowering  men  to  follow  him  in  his 
redemptive  pilgrimage.  He  can  never  lose  his  place 
as  the  head  of  Christianity,  not  merely  because  he  is 
its  historical  initiator,  but  because  in  his  self-expres- 


CHRISTIANITY  277 

slon  he  brings  us  to  God,  and  unites  us  to  himself  as 
he  is  united  with  the  Father. 

When  we  consider  the  high  nature  of  Christianity, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  the  word  Christian  is  used 
with  much  latitude  of  meaning.  If  we  put  into  the 
word  all  that  ideally  belongs  to  it,  it  denotes  all  that 
is  high  and  worthy  both  in  religion  and  in  ethics. 
If  the  complete  significance  is  understood  to  be 
always  in  the  name,  no  one  will  dare  call  himself  a 
Christian.  Using  the  word  at  all  in  this  imperfect 
world,  we  are  compelled  to  apply  it  where  the  facts 
fit  it  only  in  part.  But  the  Master  would  approve 
this.  Looking  out  upon  the  world  at  any  given 
moment,  he  could  not  behold  a  Christendom  of  com- 
pleted Christians.  All  that  he  can  expect  to  behold 
is  men  on  the  way.  No  one  has  yet  attained  to  the 
full  result  of  his  salvation,  or  will  attain  it  in  this 
world:  there  is  more  beyond.  All  Christians  are 
unfinished;  wherefore  all  Christian  facts  and  works 
are  such  as  can  exist  in  a  world  of  uncompleted  chil- 
dren of  the  good  Father.  Christianity  itself  is  still 
a  living  and  growing  thing.  Therefore  the  word 
Christian  constantly  bears  something  less  that  its 
ideal  fulness  of  meaning.  A  man  who  may  be  called 
a  Christian  is  not  necessarily  a  perfect  specimen.  He 
is  living  the  life  with  some  degree  of  success,  and 
counts  fairly  on  the  Christian  side.  It  doth  not  yet 
appear  what  he  is  to  be,  but  he  is  a  man  who  is  on 
the  way  to  a  child's  likeness  to  the  Father.  There 
is  no  way  of  defining  a  Christian  more  closely,  for  the 


278  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

experience  of  the  new  life  takes  innumerable  forms, 
and  minutely  exacting  definitions  are  certain  to  be 
unjust.  In  consequence  of  all  this  it  naturally  fol- 
lows that  the  name  Christian  is  applied  somewhat 
loosely  to  facts  and  institutions  in  the  world.  We 
call  our  civilization  a  Christian  civilization — which 
it  is  in  parts,  while  in  some  respects  the  ideal  of 
Jesus  is  utterly  at  war  with  it.  We  must  learn  to 
distinguish  things  that  differ,  and  apply  the  sacred 
name  with  discernment  and  keen  conscience;  and 
yet  our  Lord  would  have  us  just  and  charitable 
judges,  able  not  only  to  see  faults,  but  to  recognize 
the  Christian  reality  wherever  it  exists. 

Because  Christianity  is  a  life,  it  will  always  have 
its  institutions,  servants  of  the  life,  and  its  doctrines, 
explanations  of  the  life.  Because  it  is  thus  far  an 
uncompleted  life,  its  institutions  must  be  expected 
to  lack  something  of  the  ideal  character,  and  its  doc- 
trines will  be  feeling  their  way  toward  perfect  appre- 
hension of  the  truth.  The  institutions  will  natu- 
rally vary  from  age  to  age,  for  life  means  variety. 
Different  nations  and  races,  living  in  various  times 
and  conditions,  will  build  up  institutions  for  the 
Christian  life  under  the  various  impulses  of  their 
own  nature,  and  the  Master  would  encourage  such 
variation  as  living  reality  requires.  At  the  end  of  a 
chapter  that  assigns  to  Christianity  such  qualities  as 
have  been  attributed  to  it  here,  it  is  quite  impossible 
to  say  that  it  will  be  represented  through  ages  by  un- 
changing institutions.     It  is  too  much  alive  for  that. 


CHRISTIANITY  279 

As  for  the  Christian  doctrines,  they  are  explanations 
of  the  Christian  life,  and  expressions  of  the  various 
truth  which  it  involves.  So  vital  a  fact  must  have  its 
doctrines,  burdened  with  the  greatness  of  God,  rich 
with  the  tenderness  of  Christ,  practical  as  love  and 
righteousness.  Its  doctrines  are  men's  analysis  and 
description  of  it,  the  best  that  they  can  make.  Of 
course  they  can  never  be  single  and  uniform,  the  same 
to  all,  for  genuine  spiritual  visions  can  never  be  the 
same  to  all  who  behold  them,  and  there  is  no  way  to 
represent  a  great  experience  in  unchanging  formulas. 
Nor,  so  long  as  Christianity  is  a  living  thing  and  not 
a  relic,  can  any  statements  of  doctrine  be  final. 
Thought  will  always  be  busy  with  the  great  themes, 
and  as  long  as  men  think  they  will  see  new  light. 
Progress  is  a  necessary  form  of  the  life  of  doctrine, 
each  generation  adding  something  to  the  work  of 
the  past  and  offering  something  new  to  the  future. 
Christian  doctrine  is  thus  bound  to  be  an  ever- 
moving  stream  of  intellectual  and  spiritual  apprecia- 
tion, and  in  its  movement  is  its  power.  The  stead- 
fastness and  the  variability  are  both  due  to  the  fact 
that  doctrine  is  the  expression  of  a  life  that  never 
fails. 

The  word  that  best  gathers  up  the  central  truth 
concerning  Christianity  is  the  great  word  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  "I  am  come  that  they  may  have  life, 
and  may  have  it  abundantly." 


XIV 

THE  CHURCH 

If  we  have  obtained  some  conception  of  the  Chris- 
tianity into  which  the  ideal  of  Jesus  has  wrought  itself, 
we  must  go  farther  and  inquire  about  the  Christian 
Church.  I  do  not  propose  to  define  it  as  an  existing 
thing,  but  to  inquire  what  in  the  light  of  the  living 
Jesus  it  ought  to  be.  What  would  it  be  if  it  were 
formed  upon  the  lines  of  his  ideal .?  What  manner  of 
organized  body  would  correspond  to  the  Christianity 
of  Jesus  ?  It  may  seem  overbold  to  ask  this  ques- 
tion and  attempt  an  answer.  It  may  be  thought,  at 
any  rate,  that  one  man's  answer  to  it  can  be  only  a 
subjective  thing,  worthy  of  no  general  attention. 
Nevertheless  I  cannot  feel  that  it  ought  to  be  so  very 
difficult  to  trace  the  ideal  of  Jesus  out  to  its  appro- 
priate result  in  organization  and  be  reasonably  sure 
that  we  are  reaching  a  congruous  conclusion.  It 
seems  to  me  that  this  lesson  is  one  that  can  be 
learned. 

Our  best  guide  is  the  manner  in  which  the  earhest 
organization  arose.  It  did  not  arise  in  Jesus'  life- 
time. Save  that  he  gathered  twelve  men  about  him 
to  be  trained  for  service,  he  built  up  no  organization 
and  started  none.  Even  to  these  apostles  he  gave 
no  organization,  so  far  as  we  know,  and  he  never 

280 


THE  CHURCH  281 

intimated  that  they  would  have  successors  to  serve 
perpetually  as  officials  in  his  church.  But  organi- 
zation was  sure  to  come  after  he  had  gone.  Men 
will  combine  when  they  have  a  powerful  common 
life  and  purpose,  and  these  the  Christians  had. 
The  organization,  first  at  Jerusalem  and  afterward 
elsewhere,  was  so  natural  and  simple  that  we  can 
understand  it  well.  It  came  spontaneously,  because 
it  was  wanted:  there  was  something  for  it  to  do. 
It  arose  to  accomplish  a  purpose,  and  the  purpose 
is  so  plain  that  we  can  state  it  without  the  slightest 
uncertainty.  Churches  sprang  up,  in  Jerusalem,  in 
Antioch,  and  elsewhere,  for  the  purpose  of  taking 
care  of  the  life  in  which  Christianity  consisted,  and 
of  promoting  the  work  which  the  life  had  to  do. 
The  church  was  called  into  being  to  maintain  Chris- 
tianity, and  to  accomplish  its  object. 

This  origin  of  the  church  corresponds  entirely,  I 
am  sure,  to  what  I  have  called  the  ideal  of  Jesus. 
It  sounds  like  him  as  we  have  been  hearing  him. 
If  he  had  been  asked  to  what  intent  his  disciples 
should  organize  themselves  when  he  was  with  them 
no  longer,  we  know  enough  of  him  to  judge  that  he 
would  have  bidden  them  organize  for  the  protection, 
nourishing,  and  training  of  the  new  life  that  they 
were  living,  and  for  the  promotion  of  the  work  which 
the  new  life  was  bound  to  undertake.  And,  if  we 
have  felt  his  atmosphere  rightly  in  the  Gospels,  he 
would  not  have  been  likely  to  dictate  the  form  and 
manner  of  their  organization.  Counsel  that  is  like 
the  Jesus  to  whom  we  have  been  listening  would  be, 


282  THE  IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

"Organize  to  make  the  most  of  the  new  Hfe  and  its 
work,  and  do  it  in  the  way  that  will  serve  the  pur- 
pose best."  This  at  any  rate  is  just  what  they  did, 
for  their  churches  were  not  all  alike.  We  cannot 
well  picture  the  Jesus  whom  we  know  as  deciding 
beforehand  upon  the  form  of  organization  that  would 
serve  the  new  life  best  in  all  times  and  conditions, 
or  affirming  that  any  one  form  would  do  that.  The 
early  Christians  were  faithful  to  the  mind  of  their 
Master  when  they  organized  themselves  as  simply 
and  informally  and  variously  as  they  did. 

I  suppose  that  my  statement  of  the  purpose  of  the 
church  would  be  accepted  by  all  bodies  that  have 
ever  called  themselves  churches.  They  would  all 
say  that  they  existed,  and  ought  to  exist,  in  order  to 
take  care  of  the  Christian  life  and  promote  the  Chris- 
tian work.  But  of  course  this  is  a  very  flexible  idea 
of  purpose,  and  certain  to  produce  much  variety  in 
organization  and  in  organized  life.  What  does  the 
Christian  life  need  for  its  support  and  welfare,  and 
what  is  the  work  which  it  is  called  to  do  ?  Churches 
will  differ  in  their  structure  according  as  these  ques- 
tions are  differently  answered.  Differences  in  con- 
ditions also  will  modify  the  needs  that  organization 
must  meet.  So  one  form  for  all  times  and  seasons  is 
impossible.  At  first  very  simple  structure  sufficed, 
and  for  a  time  the  original  simplicity  was  not  much 
modified.  But  as  the  new  faith  spread,  new  condi- 
tions arose  that  seemed  to  require,  and  probably  did 
require,  new  modes  of  organizing  to  serve  the  origi- 


THE  CHURCH  283 

nal  end.  Scattered  Christian  communities  were 
lonely,  often  ill-trained,  and  often  insufficient  to  the 
work  that  opened  before  them.  Unity  was  hard  to 
maintain,  and  even  to  establish.  Neither  local  in- 
terests nor  larger  interests  seemed  well  provided  for, 
and  there  seemed  to  be  need  of  more  organization, 
administration,  and  centralization  of  control.  Grad- 
ually the  stronger  bodies  assumed  more  charge  over 
the  weaker.  An  official  unity  grew  up  to  guard  the 
spiritual  unity  and  to  do  the  large  work  with  better 
effect.  To  fulfil  the  original  purpose  as  it  had  come 
to  be  understood,  organization  became  more  elabo- 
rate and  comprehensive,  until  at  length  a  world-fill- 
ing church  had  been  built  up,  vested  with  authority. 
But  a  natural  result  was  that  the  official  unity 
tended  to  take  the  place  of  the  spiritual  unity  which 
it  had  risen  to  guard. 

Meanwhile  it  had  come  to  be  believed  that  the 
Christian  life  was  dependent  upon  sacraments.  Out- 
ward acts  performed  by  due  authority  were  taken 
to  be  the  means  of  effecting  the  regeneration  that 
Christianity  involves,  and  of  bringing  in  that  divine 
presence  on  which  the  life  depends.  The  sacra- 
mental method  was  unknown  to  Jesus  if  we  may 
judge  from  his  utterances  and  the  tone  of  his  life, 
and  certainly  there  is  no  place  for  it  in  his  ideal  of 
the  relation  between  God  and  man.  He  always  con- 
templates divine  reality  in  inward  experience,  and 
instead  of  providing  for  having  it  mediated  through 
indispensable  outward  acts,  he  sends  the  soul  straight 
to  the  Father  who  seeth  in  secret,  and  makes  com- 


284  THE  IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

munication  between  spirit  and  Spirit  direct.  But 
when  the  later  idea  had  been  accepted,  it  was  natural 
that  the  church  should  claim  the  privilege  of  minis- 
tering to  her  children  the  grace  of  God  through  sac- 
raments, and  this  practice  in  turn  modified  the 
church  and  confirmed  its  high  prerogatives.  But  this 
process  did  not  altogether  destroy  the  simpler  idea  of 
Christian  organization,  and  in  later  times  it  bloomed 
anew.  In  the  modern  age,  many  organizations  have 
grown  up  to  fulfil  the  original  purpose  of  the  church. 
Where  the  dictation  of  an  authoritative  church  was 
absent,  all  the  more  various  grew  the  churches.  They 
have  taken  many  forms,  differing  widely  though  they 
fell  into  a  few  groups.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  no  one 
of  them  has  existed  in  vain.  They  have  all  existed, 
whether  most  wisely  and  effectively  or  not,  for  the 
service  of  the  Christian  life  and  work,  and  with 
greater  or  less  efficiency  they  have  all  done  what  the 
church  arose  to  do. 

Thus  Christian  organization  began  in  a  manner 
that  corresponded  well  to  the  ideal  of  Jesus,  and 
has  never  wholly  departed  from  it.  Yet  we  cannot 
claim  that  his  ideal  contemplated  such  a  condition 
as  the  present.  Now  we  have  two  great  authorita- 
tive churches  denying  each  other's  authority,  and  a 
host  of  minor  churches  recognized  by  neither  and 
strenuously  rejecting  both,  while  among  themselves 
they  can  scarcely  call  one  another  churches  with  a 
free  heart  and  a  full  meaning.  Something  has  gone 
wrong.  The  ideal  of  Jesus  certainly  has  not  had  its 
way.     We  cannot  hope  to  revolutionize  the  situation 


THE  CHURCH  285 

by  discussing  it,  but  I  think  I  see  what  is  the  most 
wholesome  thing  that  we  can  do.  If  we  can  only  set 
the  whole  matter  in  the  light  of  the  countenance  of 
that  matchless  Personality  to  whom  we  have  been 
listening;  if  we  can  submit  it  all  to  the  influence  of 
the  sane  and  spiritual  ideal  that  is  characteristic  of 
him,  he  who  never  described  the  church  but  left  his 
followers  to  frame  it  in  accordance  with  what  they 
had  learned  of  him  will  be  our  best  guide  in  present 
judgment. 

If  the  first  Christians  began  rightly,  as  I  judge  that 
they  did,  it  would  seem  that  Jesus  projected  into  the 
future  the  need  and  purpose  of  a  church,  rather  than 
the  form  of  a  church.  He  was  leaving  in  the  world  a 
life  to  be  lived,  and  a  church  would  be  adapted  to  pro- 
tect it  and  to  utilize  it.  For  this  the  early  churches 
sprang  up,  each  in  its  own  field.  They  were  not  all 
alike,  for  some  were  patterned  after  the  Jewish  syna- 
gogue and  some  after  local  organizations  of  the  Gen- 
tile world,  but  they  were  all  aimed  at  the  one  purpose, 
and  therefore  all  were  Christian  churches.  This  is 
well  akin  to  the  mind  of  the  Jesus  of  the  gospels,  to 
whom  purpose  is  so  much  and  form  so  little.  His 
view  of  life,  so  far  as  we  can  read  it,  would  seem  to 
suggest  many  Christian  bodies,  not  necessarily  all 
alike  in  mode  and  structure,  all  devoted  to  the  care 
of  the  Christian  life  and  the  doing  of  its  work,  recog- 
nizing one  another  in  the  fellowship  of  this  common 
purpose,  and  held  together  in  the  unity  of  this  com- 
mon work. 


286  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

Against  this  reading  of  the  mind  of  Jesus  stands 
the  widespread  assumption  that  Christianity  must 
necessarily  be  represented  in  the  world  by  one  sole 
organization,  single  and  unique.  Of  course  millions 
believe  that  there  is  such  an  organization  and  they 
are  members  of  it,  and  many  besides  feel  that  such  a 
body  ought  to  exist.  The  ideal  of  an  organized  uni- 
versal church,  which  grew  up  in  the  early  centuries, 
still  dominates  the  most  of  Christendom,  and  has  not 
been  displaced  from  the  reverent  imagination  of  the 
divided  Protestant  world.  But  in  the  presence  of 
the  ideal  of  Jesus  as  we  have  seen  it  we  are  led  to 
question  the  whole  assumption.  We  know  that  if  it 
is  claimed  that  the  rehgion  of  Jesus  must  have  a  sole 
organization  to  represent  it,  the  claim  must  have  the 
best  of  support.  It  must  be  supported  not  by  a  text 
or  two,  or  by  a  few  expressions  here  and  there,  nor, 
on  the  other  hand,  by  some  ingenious  argument. 
These  will  never  suffice.  The  claim  must  have  the 
cordial  suffrage  of  the  ideal  of  Jesus.  The  figure  of 
the  living  Jesus  must  be  shown  to  be  in  keeping  with 
such  an  institution.  It  must  appear  that  the  con- 
ception of  a  sole  churchly  body  accords  in  spirit 
with  the  broad  view  of  God,  man  and  life  which  he 
proclaimed,  and  that  no  other  conception  does  ac- 
cord with  his  ideal.  For  certainly  we  must  assume 
that  he  has  not  projected  into  the  future  a  demand 
for  something  unlike  the  ideal  that  appears  in  his 
life  and  words.  But  when  it  comes  to  the  case  in 
hand,  probably  no  one  ever  breathed  in  the  doctrine 
of  a  sole  and  universal  church  from  the  unmixed 


THE   CHURCH  287 

atmosphere  of  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels.  We  should 
have  to  modify  deeply  the  picture  of  him  that  the 
Gospels  afford,  before  we  could  think  of  him  as 
uttering  for  all  the  future  the  demand  for  such  a 
church.  His  ideal  in  the  Gospels  looks  to  a  sim- 
pler, broader,  freer  method.  Vast  formal  institutions 
may  have  gathered  around  him,  but  they  cannot 
look  to  him  for  their  original  inspiration.  He  spent 
much  of  his  time  in  combating  the  requirements  of  a 
great  uniform  institution  and  bringing  his  disciples 
out  from  under  it,  and  the  tone  of  his  work  does  not 
seem  favorable  to  the  setting  up  of  another  in  his 
name.  The  original  Master  was  not  one  to  project 
into  the  future  a  successor  to  the  Roman  Empire, 
or  any  single  world-filling  institution.  Only  by  read- 
ing our  own  ideals  into  his  can  we  understand  him 
so.  The  simplicity  and  informality  of  the  earliest 
Christian  organization  harmonizes  with  the  tone  and 
influence  of  his  life.  Simple  and  flexible  structure 
must  belong  to  an  organization  that  represents  the 
real  spirit  of  the  living  Jesus. 

In  one  respect,  however,  the  present  situation  cor- 
responds somewhat  to  his  ideal.  There  is  no  one 
body  in  the  world  that  can  properly  be  called  the 
Christian  church  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  and 
there  are  many  bodies  that  exist  to  fulfil  the  purpose 
of  the  church.  That  is,  no  body  is  the  church  in 
form,  many  bodies  are  the  church  in  purpose.  Any 
body  that  claims  to  be  the  only  authorized  represen- 
tative of  Christianity  is  ignoring  facts  concerning 
other  bodies.     No  such  claim  can  be  substantiated  in 


28S  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

view  of  the  history  of  God's  work  among  men.  But 
this  is  as  it  ought  to  be:  the  Master  never  meant  that 
any  such  claim  should  be  defensible.  On  the  other 
hand,  Christendom  is  full  of  bodies  organized  to  do 
just  what  a  Christian  church  must  do,  and  putting 
forth  their  strength  for  that  very  purpose.  The  great 
bodies  that  call  themselves  Catholic  or  Orthodox,  and 
the  smaller  bodies  that  bear  a  hundred  forms  and 
work  in  a  hundred  ways,  are  all  one  in  practical 
intent,  and  their  intent  is  exactly  that  for  which  the 
church  in  Jerusalem  was  formed  and  which  matches 
so  well  the  ideal  of  Jesus.  They  are  all  imperfect, 
but  they  all  exist  to  take  care  of  the  Christian  life 
and  promote  the  work  of  Christianity  in  the  world. 
They  differ  in  their  methods,  but  they  are  one  in  their 
end.  This  also  is  as  it  should  be.  If  we  read  the 
Master  rightly,  he  never  can  have  intended  anything 
else. 

If  we  follow  the  light  of  the  ideal  of  Jesus,  it  would 
seem  that  any  body  that  was  organized  and  living  in 
order  to  take  care  of  the  Christian  life  and  promote 
the  service  of  Christianity  to  the  world  should  be 
recognized  as  a  Christian  church.  One  would  think 
that  before  now  this  somewhat  obvious  Christian 
definition  might  have  commended  itself  to  the  many 
churches  as  one  that  should  be  applied  all  round. 
One  would  think  that  a  church  might  long  ago  have 
been  defined  in  the  light  of  its  purpose,  rather  than 
by  description  of  its  form  or  method.  Certainly 
the  Master  would  define  it  so.  But  this  has  not 
occurred  to  the  Christian  people.  The  many  churches 


THE  CHURCH  289 

have  in  common  the  great  point  that  they  all  exist 
for  the  true  purpose  of  the  Christian  church,  some 
serving  it  better  than  others,  no  doubt,  but  all  de- 
voted to  it,  each  in  a  way  of  its  own.  Yet  they  define 
themselves  as  churches,  and  define  the  church,  in  view 
of  their  differences  and  specialties.  Each  of  them 
has  defined  the  church  of  Christ  in  its  own  way,  and 
each  in  view  of  some  distinguishing  mark  borne  by 
itself.  They  do  not  claim  to  be  true  churches  be- 
cause of  their  relation  to  the  Lord's  ideal  and  pur- 
pose for  the  church,  but  because  of  their  differences 
and  peculiarities:  one  is  a  church  because  it  has  the 
Pope,  another  because  of  its  orthodox  doctrine,  an- 
other because  it  is  equipped  with  bishops  or  with 
presbyters,  another  because  it  is  an  independent  con- 
gregation, another  because  it  has  the  right  baptism, 
and  so  on.  If  only  they  could  learn  of  Jesus  here, 
and  look  with  his  eyes,  they  would  view  themselves 
and  one  another  first  of  all  in  the  light  of  their  com- 
mon relation  to  the  ideal  of  their  Lord  for  his 
church.  The  definition  is  an  easy  one.  A  church 
is  a  body  that  exists  to  serve  the  purpose  of  a  church. 

I  do  not  claim  that  I  can  draw  a  true  picture  of  a 
church  as  it  would  be  if  the  ideal  of  Jesus  had  its 
way.  No  one  can  do  that  accurately,  and  yet  to  a 
certain  extent  the  picture  is  not  an  impossible  one. 
There  is  no  living  model  to  draw  from,  for  all 
churches  depart  more  or  less  from  the  ideal.  Some 
are  practising  ideas  that  harmonize  but  very  poorly 
with  the  mind  of  the  Master,  and  all,  in  some  way 


290  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

or  other,  live  in  another  atmosphere  than  his.  All 
need  alike  to  get  a  vision  of  what  Jesus  would  have  a 
church  to  be,  if  his  view  of  God  and  life  could  have 
its  way.  I  cannot  go  far  toward  a  description,  but  I 
can  set  forth  the  vital  points  in  what  a  church  would 
be  if  it  accorded  with  the  ideal  of  Jesus,  and  even  a 
slight  exhibition  of  them  may  not  be  in  vain. 

The  true  key  for  all  time  is  set  in  the  first  period, 
and  we  hear  it  sounding  there.  As  we  have  seen, 
the  church  sprang  up  in  the  interest  of  the  Christian 
religious  life.  Religion  is  the  note.  The  specialty  of 
the  church  is  religion.  The  world  has  been  right  in 
calling  that  which  sprang  from  Jesus  a  religion. 
Christianity  is  a  religion  first  and  foremost;  its  relig- 
ious aspect  is  its  chief  aspect.  Therefore  it  is  that 
the  church,  which  sprang  up  in  the  interest  of  relig- 
ion, is  its  chief  representative.  It  stands  for  Christi- 
anity in  its  religious  spirit  and  power,  and  there- 
fore represents  it  in  the  world  as  nothing  else  can. 
The  church  is  the  characteristic  institution  in  which 
the  peculiar  life-power  of  the  Christian  religion  is 
gathered  as  nowhere  else. 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  see  the  church  begin- 
ning its  agelong  work  in  taking  care  of  the  Christian 
life.  See  what  it  does.  It  provides  the  Christian  life 
with  a  home,  warms  it  with  fellowship,  feeds  it  with 
spiritual  food,  keeps  it  in  health  through  activity. 
This  is  a  fair  picture  of  the  permanent  work  which 
it  has  to  do.  The  church  welcomes  the  Christian 
life,  nourishes  it,  trains  it  up.  It  summons  it  to 
acknowledge  the  divine  goodness  in  worship,  prayer 


THE  CHURCH  291 

and  praise.  It  ministers  for  its  nourishment  and 
edification  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus,  the  word  of 
life.  It  encourages  the  Christian  hfe  in  its  proper 
habits  of  expression,  and  sets  before  it  its  normal 
work.  It  makes  warm  company  for  it  to  live  and 
grow  in.  It  keeps  the  divine  hopes  and  consola- 
tions ready  for  use  in  time  of  need.  It  keeps  the 
windows  open  toward  heaven,  and  the  heart  at- 
tuned to  heavenly  influence.  It  is  thus  the  helper, 
sustainer,  educator  of  the  Christian  life  within  itself. 
How  beautifully  this  work  coincides  with  the  evident 
intention  of  Jesus,  who  left  the  life  young,  weak,  and 
unguarded  in  an  unfriendly  world!  He  meant  it  to 
unite  for  self-defence  and  training,  and  still  are  his 
disciples  organized  for  the  common  protection  and 
development  of  their  highest  life  in  him. 

Equally  do  they  honor  his  ideal  when  they  organize 
to  do  the  work  of  Christianity  in  the  world.  This  lies 
beyond  self-training  as  an  end.  This  is  for  others. 
So  the  church  preaches  the  gospel  of  the  grace  of  God, 
not  only  to  nourish  itself  but  to  save  men  around  it. 
It  expounds  to  the  world  the  truth  that  is  in  Jesus. 
It  makes  converts  to  the  faith,  by  its  best  endeavors 
both  in  persuasion  and  in  godly  example  and  influ- 
ence. It  seeks  to  convey  the  gift  of  Christ  to  man- 
kind. So  it  organizes  missions  near  and  far,  and 
sends  the  life  abroad  to  win  its  way.  It  is  the  living 
expression  of  the  love  of  God  in  Christ  toward  men, 
loving  the  world  as  God  loves  it  and  seeking  to  save. 
The  church  is  the  voice  of  Christianity,  uttering  its 
heart.     It  does  good  as  it  has  opportunity  to  all  men 


292  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

in  all  ways.  It  stands  for  righteousness  and  human 
fellowship.  It  promotes  good  morals  as  a  part  of  the 
true  life  of  man.  It  proclaims  and  helps  forward  the 
coming  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  In  all  this  how 
beautifully  it  is  living  out  the  ideal  of  Jesus,  who  left 
the  new  life  unorganized,  but  sure  to  follow  its  nature 
into  such  a  union  of  its  forces  for  doing  its  work  upon 
the  world! 

With  religion  as  thus  the  specialty  of  its  work,  it  is 
plain  that  the  church  of  the  ideal  of  Jesus  will  have 
rehgion  as  the  specialty  of  its  character.  It  cannot 
efficiently  nourish  or  extend  a  life  that  it  does  not 
possess  and  make  mach  of.  That  is  to  say,  the  fine 
religious  quality  that  we  find  in  Jesus  himself  and  in 
all  his  ideal  is  its  characteristic.  Its  heart  is  open  to 
the  Father,  its  resort  is  unto  him  who  sees  in  secret, 
its  trust  in  God  is  a  loyal  confidence,  its  righteousness 
is  the  genuine  response  of  the  soul  to  the  voice  of 
God  within,  its  morality  is  inspired  from  above,  and 
its  love  to  man  is  a  part  of  its  devotion  to  God. 

There  is  one  word  that  expresses  a  quality  central 
to  the  life  of  the  church  of  the  ideal  of  Jesus.  That 
word  is  helpfulness.  We  trace  the  quality  in  the 
beginning,  for  were  not  all  the  churches  formed  to 
help — to  help  the  Christian  life  that  needed  nourish- 
ing and  cherishing,  and  to  help  the  world  to  find  its 
life  in  Christ  ?  The  same  quality  shines  out  in  the 
church  as  I  have  just  portrayed  it.  Helpfulness  tow- 
ard one  another  within,  toward  the  neighbors  who 
need  to  know  their  God,  toward  the  world  far  and 
near,  helpfulness  as  opportunity  offers — this  is  the 


THE   CHURCH  293 

tone  in  which  the  keynote  of  religion  sounds.  Re- 
ligion itself  is  helpfulness  as  soon  as  it  looks  out 
through  the  eye  and  moves  out  in  the  hand  of  the 
individual.  Religion  is  helpfulness  as  soon  as  it  or- 
ganizes itself  for  its  congenial  v^ork.  Was  not  this  the 
spirit  of  the  kingdom  ^  He  who  said,  "  I  am  among 
you  as  he  that  serveth,"  he  who  called  himself  the 
physician  of  the  sinful,  has  this  for  the  type  and 
character  of  his  church,  that  it  is  a  helpful  body, 
serving  men  in  the  spirit  of  him  who  came  not  to  be 
ministered  unto,  but  to  minister.  It  lives  not  unto 
itself,  but  serves  God  in  serving  men. 

The  church  is  the  central  representative  of  Chris- 
tianity in  the  world,  as  we  have  seen;  but  when  we 
have  looked  at  it  in  the  light  of  this  quality  of  help- 
fulness, it  is  plain  that  it  cannot  be  the  sole  rep- 
resentative. There  are  others.  Christianity  inspires 
helpfulness  so  broadly  that  no  one  institution  can 
possibly  be  its  only  representative.  It  inspires  all 
kinds  of  self-sacrificing  service:  it  serves  the  King 
by  serving  the  least  of  his  brethren,  wherever  they 
are.  Not  all  works  of  helpfulness  lie  equally  near 
its  spiritual  centre,  but  they  all  lie  within  the  circle 
of  its  inspiration.  This  means  that  Christianity  in- 
spires work  of  helpfulness  of  which  no  one  body 
could  possibly  undertake  the  whole.  If  it  tried  to 
act  as  the  sole  and  complete  representative  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  church  would  be  compelled  to  neglect 
its  first  calling,  scatter  its  energies,  and  do  nothing 
well.  There  must  be  division  of  labor.  Numberless 
human  betterments  that  Christianity  inspires  must 


294  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

have  their  own  organizations  distinct  from  the  church, 
and  these  represent  Christianity  too  in  their  own 
place,  being  true  offspring  of  its  heart  and  servants 
of  its  purpose.  To  use  the  common  illustration, 
some  one  else  will  clear  the  Jericho  road  of  robbers, 
while  the  good  Samaritan  takes  care  of  the  wounded 
man,  and  they  will  both  be  serving  one  cause.  But 
if  the  church  lives  in  the  ideal  of  Jesus,  its  warmest 
heart  and  hand  are  given  in  fellowship  to  these 
works.  Humanitarian  works  outside  the  distinctly 
religious  field  are  well  accustomed  to  receive  the  cold 
shoulder  from  the  church,  which  has  suspected  their 
motives  and  withheld  from  them  its  sympathy.  But 
when  the  ideal  of  Jesus  inspires  the  church,  it  will 
know  that  organizations  for  human  benefit  are  its 
allies.  It  will  hold  them  in  warm  sympathy  and 
give  them  its  perpetual  benediction.  It  will  not  be  a 
question  whether  such  works  are  to  have  its  friend- 
ship, counsel,  and  commendation.  It  will  be  at  their 
right  hand,  and  will  train  its  people  to  take  part  in 
them  when  their  help  is  needed. 

There  is  no  hint  in  the  ideal  of  Jesus  that  the 
church  will  exercise  its  function  of  helpfulness  in  the 
method  of  authority.  The  church  might  be  the 
authority  in  religion  according  to  the  ideals  of  this 
world,  but  not  according  to  that  of  Jesus.  "It  shall 
not  be  so  among  you."  An  authoritative  church  is 
not  like  the  Jesus  to  whom  we  have  been  listening. 
His  appeal  is  made  without  reserve  to  the  human 
judgment  and  conscience,  and  we  rise  from  listening 
to  him  with  the  impression  that  nothing  must  inter- 


THE  CHURCH  295 

fere  with  the  direct  relation  between  the  soul  and 
God.  He  knows  no  one  between  God  and  man.  In 
the  name  of  God  he  sets  men  free  from  ecclesiastical 
domination  of  the  olden  time,  and  the  principle  that 
sets  them  free  would  keep  them  free.  No  one  can 
come  between — unless  indeed  God  should  depute  his 
authority  to  the  church  and  make  it  equal  to  himself. 
But  that,  in  the  light  of  Jesus,  appears  impossible. 
The  peculiarity  in  God  that  sets  the  soul  free  from  all 
other  masters  is  not  of  a  kind  to  be  deputed,  even 
to  a  church.  It  is  grounded  in  an  unchangeable  and 
untransferable  relation.  The  soul  that  responds  to  it 
must  recognize  this  authority  in  God  himself  and 
there  alone.  While  we  listen  to  Jesus  we  cannot  im- 
agine him  telling  his  disciples  that  any  one  whatever 
could  represent  God  in  his  relation  to  their  con- 
sciences, or  that  any  one  could  be  deputed  by  him 
to  decide  what  they  must  think  of  truth,  or  believe 
about  facts,  or  judge  concerning  duty.  A  church 
that  corresponds  to  his  ideal  will  be  a  church  of 
freemen,  and  its  help  to  its  people  will  be  such  help 
as  freemen  can  best  profit  by.  It  will  be  a  guide 
and  counsellor  to  them,  but  will  not  be  burdened 
with  the  responsibility  of  ruling  their  souls.  For 
exemption  from  this  it  will  be  thankful.  For  men 
created  to  think,  authority  is  not  the  best  form  of 
help. 

Accordingly  the  ideal  church  is  not  an  imposer 
of  creeds.  This  form,  of  authority  in  a  church  seems 
especially  incongruous  with  the  personality  and  influ- 
ence of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels.    We  cannot  imagine  the 


296  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

Jesus  whom  we  know  as  dictating  beliefs  in  theology 
to  his  disciples,  or  directing  them  to  dictate  to  one 
another,  or  authorizing  man  or  church  to  dictate  to 
them.  He  gave  no  sign  of  any  disposition  to  require 
intellectual  agreement  or  uniformity  among  those 
who  learned  of  him.  He  never  discussed  the  intel- 
lectual aspects  of  the  truth  that  he  proclaimed.  He 
proposed  no  creedal  tests,  and  his  influence  is  not  of 
a  kind  to  suggest  them.  He  calls  men  to  live  the  life 
with  God,  he  teaches  them  righteousness,  love,  and 
self-sacrifice,  he  gives  them  liberty  to  welcome  the 
voice  of  God  whispering  in  the  ear,  he  trains  them 
for  the  service  of  the  kingdom,  but  he  does  not  speak 
as  a  master  of  rigidity,  insisting  upon  uniform  belief. 
Not  that  he  does  not  encourage  thought,  the  deepest 
and  the  keenest.  He  must,  for  his  appeal  is  to  the 
living  soul  of  man.  His  people  need  knowledge,  and 
deep  pondering  on  the  deep  things  of  God  is  a 
vital  part  of  their  experience.  Some  of  them  must 
give  their  lives  to  knowing  God  in  thought,  and 
progress  in  clear  thought  of  him  will  be  one  of  the 
great  evidences  that  God  is  with  his  children.  But 
thinking  and  uniformity  are  impossible  companions. 
If  men  really  think  they  will  differ  more  or  less. 
Jesus'  appeal  to  the  conscience  of  the  individual  is  an 
appeal  to  independent  personal  thought.  We  have 
seen  how  he  delights  in  genuineness  and  originality 
in  the  inner  man.  No  word  of  his  requires  that  all 
who  think  shall  think  alike  or  reach  identical  con- 
clusions. No  word  even  faintly  intimates  that  the 
individual  Christian  must  accept  the  beliefs  of  the 


THE  CHURCH  297 

majority,  or  agree  with  great  thinkers  ancient  or 
modern,  or  have  doctrines  dictated  to  him  by  the 
church;  nor  does  his  ideal  indicate  any  such  expec- 
tation or  demand.  His  thought  moves  in  another 
atmosphere.  A  prescribed  creed  is  no  part  of  his 
ideal.  He  is  too  thorough  a  master  of  reality  for 
that.  With  him  belief,  like  virtue,  must  be  one's 
own.  A  belief  accepted  because  it  is  prescribed  is 
unreal,  and  belongs  more  to  the  righteousness  of 
scribes  and  Pharisees  than  to  the  better  righteous- 
ness of  the  kingdom.  The  ideal  of  Jesus  calls  for 
a  church  that  will  be  a  wise  and  friendly  helper  of 
its  people  in  respect  of  their  believing,  but  not  a 
church  that  will  tell  them  what  they  must  believe. 

To  sketch  the  church  of  the  ideal  of  Jesus  in  this 
manner  is  to  stir  up  a  host  of  practical  questions. 
Probably  no  reader  has  failed  to  see  them  emerging. 
If  creed  retires  from  its  old  prominence,  still  how 
much  creed  must  there  be  ^  and  how  is  it  to  be 
formed,  and  what  position  shall  it  hold  ?  What  will 
be  the  terms  of  membership  in  the  church  of  the 
ideal  of  Jesus  ^  Will  there  be  any  such  thing  as 
discipline  there  .^  How  largely  will  existing  churches 
come  together  as  they  advance  toward  the  goal  ? 
But  these  questions  do  not  need  to  be  answered  now. 
Indeed  they  are  not  practical  questions  yet,  but  only 
inquiries.  Until  we  are  ready  for  action  they  may 
wait.  The  first  thing  is  for  the  Christian  people  to 
catch  the  vision  of  Jesus  and  accept  their  calling. 
When  it  has  done  this  it  will  be  time  enough  to  meet 
the  questions  of  detail  that  will  arise.     By  that  time 


298  TPIE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

the  Christian  people  will  have  more  of  the  enlarged 
heart  and  judgment  that  is  required  to  deal  with 
them.  By  that  time,  too,  some  of  them  may  have 
disappeared.  Frequently  questions  are  not  settled, 
but  left  behind. 

At  present,  Christendom  is  in  a  situation  in  which 
it  greatly  needs  instruction  about  the  church  from 
the  ideal  of  Jesus.  In  view  of  its  deep  divisions 
Christendom  ought  to  be  crying  out  from  the  heart, 
"Lord,  what  wilt  thou  have  me  to  do?"  Faintly 
as  yet,  but  really,  the  cry  is  beginning  to  arise.  It 
would  be  wrong,  therefore,  not  to  inquire  what  is  the 
main  counsel  of  the  ideal  of  Jesus  for  the  present 
time.  The  need  is  very  sore  that  all  the  churches 
learn  their  true  relation  to  the  great  head  of  the 
church  and  to  one  another,  and  thus  become  ready 
to  do  their  work.     What  is  the  lesson  for  the  time  ? 

The  ideal  of  Jesus  would  teach  the  Christian  peo- 
ple to-day  that  the  duty  of  the  hour  is  mutual  recog- 
nition. Churches  must  recognize  one  another,  ac- 
cording to  the  principles  of  the  Master's  vision.  They 
have  been  judging  one  another  by  tests  that  would 
not  stand  in  his  presence;  they  must  learn  to  judge 
one  another  by  tests  that  spring  from  the  very  heart 
of  his  personality  and  his  religion.  In  his  presence 
we  say  that  the  tests  of  a  true  church  are  not 
external,  formal,  visible,  but  spiritual  and  practical. 
The  essential  thing  is  the  life,  and  devotion  to  the 
care  and  working  of  the  life.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
churches  be  all  alike  in  their  organization  and  prac- 


THE  CHURCH  299 

tice,  or  that  all  conform  themselves  to  the  pattern  of 
any  one.  They  may  be  very  unlike.  That  v^hich 
makes  them  Christian  churches  is  the  fact  that  in 
spite  of  imperfection  they  are  alive  unto  God  in 
Jesus  Christ,  and  are  devoted  to  the  care  of  the 
Christian  life  and  the  doing  of  the  v^ork  of  Chris- 
tianity in  the  world.  For  defence  of  this  definition 
there  is  no  need  of  ingenious  arguments,  which 
equal  ingenuity  may  combat:  it  grows  directly  out 
of  the  life  and  work  of  the  Master  himself.  On  this 
principle,  spiritual,  practical,  and  true,  the  ideal  of 
Jesus  would  send  the  churches  looking  for  one  an- 
other for  the  sake  of  coming  together  into  working 
fellowship. 

The  test  is  a  searching  one.  A  church  that  has 
become  a  club  for  its  own  pleasure  or  advantage  is 
denying  the  ideal  of  Jesus.  So  is  one  that  in  any 
manner  has  become  indifferent  to  vital  religion  and 
lost  its  desire  to  live  in  the  divine  atmosphere.  So 
is  one  that  holds  back  its  hand  from  the  service  of 
humanity  or  is  indifferent  to  good  morals.  So  is  one 
that  tyrannizes.  So  is  one  that  is  content  to  go  on 
just  as  it  is,  not  caring  whether  the  Lord  would  have 
it  revolutionize  its  life.  A  church  is  loyal  to  the  ideal 
of  Jesus  in  so  far  as  it  makes  much  of  warm  and  liv- 
ing religion,  delights  in  communion  with  the  Father, 
believes  in  divine  redemption,  is  sustained  by  Christian 
faith  and  hope  and  love;  in  so  far  as  it  seeks  the  salva- 
tion of  men  at  home  and  abroad  in  Jesus  Christ;  in  so 
far  as  it  is  a  free  helper  to  free  souls,  a  guardian  of 
sound  morals,  a  preacher  of  the  eternal  righteousness 


300  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

and  love;  in  so  far  as  it  is  a  self-forgetful  servant  to 
mankind  as  it  has  opportunity.  The  test  is  a  search- 
ing one.  Tests  that  relate  to  form  and  order  are 
trivial  in  comparison. 

In  order  that  Christian  churches  may  rightly  recog- 
nize one  another,  there  is  need  of  Christian  charity 
overlooking  faults,  and  of  Christian  justice  giving  full 
weight  to  virtues.  Or,  in  a  word,  there  is  need  of  the 
mind  of  Christ,  looking  with  his  eyes  upon  his  own. 
Of  course  there  is  need  of  disentanglement  from  the 
old  external  methods  of  judgment,  and  growth  into 
the  spiritual  method  of  the  Lord.  But  with  justice 
and  charity  combined,  and  with  patience,  and  with 
unquenchable  purpose  to  find  the  inner  unity  and 
do  justice  to  the  ideal  of  the  common  Lord,  the  road 
is  not  so  very  long  to  a  better  Christendom  than  the 
Lord  has  ever  seen.  When  the  existing  forces  have 
become  able  to  work  together  according  to  the  mind 
of  Christ,  the  greater  coming  of  the  kingdom  will 
be  at  hand. 


XV 

SOCIETY 

I  CAN  remember  very  well  when  it  would  have 
seemed  sufficient  to  trace  the  ideal  of  Jesus  to  its 
application  in  the  church,  the  personal  life,  and  the 
field  of  missions.  But  we  must  go  further.  We  have 
not  done  justice  to  the  intention  of  the  Master  until 
we  have  looked  beyond  the  distinctly  religious  em- 
bodiment of  his  ideal,  and  gained  a  vision  of  its  appli- 
cation to  human  society  in  the  large.  We  must  see 
what  it  would  make  of  the  life  that  men  live  together 
in  all  the  relations  in  which  they  stand.  This  vision 
Jesus  has  not  sketched  for  us  with  any  fulness,  but 
he  has  given  us  abundant  means  of  sketching  it  for 
ourselves,  at  least  in  outline.  When  we  ask  how  men 
would  live  together,  and  what  society  would  be  if  his 
ideal  were  realized  in  the  world,  the  answer  lies  very 
near  us  and  can  be  indicated  in  few  words.  In  one 
aspect  the  words  seem  commonplace,  they  are  so 
familiar;  but  in  a  truer  light  they  may  well  be  start- 
ling. They  will  be  startling  if  we  shake  off  our 
familiarity  with  them  and  allow  ourselves  to  perceive 
how  much  they  mean.     Look  at  them. 

Jesus  contemplates  a  state  of  things  in  which  men 

shall  be  inwardly  good  with  a  real  goodness,  and  shall 

be  gladly  devoted  to  doing  the  will  of  their  heavenly 

301 


302  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

Father.  In  this  sincere  and  genuine  loyalty  to  God 
he  expects  them  to  conduct  the  life  that  they  live 
together  as  men.  All  are  to  bring  what  they  learn 
from  God  into  their  relations  with  one  another. 
Each  is  to  love  his  neighbor  as  himself.  All  are  to 
act  out  the  Christlike  spirit  of  self-sacrificing  helpful- 
ness. Their  life  together  is  to  be  governed  by  justice, 
of  which  the  golden  rule  is  the  working  law.  The 
arrangements  of  social  life  are  to  do  justice  to  the 
high  value  of  human  beings.  No  man  is  to  be  or 
claim  to  be  master  over  another's  soul,  and  every 
conscience  is  to  be  answerable  to  God.  Under  these 
vital  laws  of  love,  justice,  helpfulness,  and  human 
value,  all  life  is  to  be  organized  and  to  proceed.  In 
this  spirit  must  be  conducted  the  entire  administra- 
tion of  property,  gain,  wealth,  and  the  relation  of  the 
rich  and  the  poor.  These  are  the  main  points  that 
we  have  heard  Jesus  himself  expound  and  illustrate, 
but  we  see  at  once  that  these  are  only  samples  of 
the  whole  of  life.  Classes  and  nations  are  to  live 
together  on  the  same  principles.  No  part  of  the  life 
that  men  live  together  is  to  be  exempt  from  the  sway 
of  these  simple,  righteous,  and  gracious  laws,  and 
men  must  learn  to  organize  or  reconstruct  the  society 
in  which  they  live  in  such  manner  that  these  prin- 
ples  may  have  their  way. 

This  is  a  tremendous  statement.  Incomplete 
though  it  is,  it  is  so  tremendous  that  we  may  start 
back  and  wonder  whether  it  can  be  true.  Did  Jesus 
really  mean  all  this  ?  There  is  strong  temptation  to 
deny  that  any  such  sweeping  application  of  Christi- 


SOCIETY  303 

anity  to  society  was  ever  intended  or  can  be  made. 
There  are  enormous  interests  that  are  bound  to  deny 
it  in  self-defence.  As  a  matter  of  indifference,  the 
common  inertia  denies  so  agitating  a  view.  As  a 
matter  of  practice,  it  is  very  often  assumed  that 
Christianity  is  not  a  revolutionary  force,  except  upon 
the  hearts  and  habits  of  individual  men.  As  a  mat- 
ter of  biblical  interpretation,  many  maintain  that 
Christianity  is  not  intended  to  revolutionize  society, 
but  only  to  transform  a  group  of  individuals,  while 
society  is  left  to  perish.  Thus  sin  and  selfishness  and 
inertia  and  the  testimony  of  many  Christians  con- 
spire to  assure  the  social  organism  that  it  is  to  be  let 
alone  by  the  redemptive  power  of  God,  honey-combed 
though  it  is  with  unchristian  practices. 

But  if  we  wish  to  know  whether  in  its  nature 
Christianity  is  a  revolutionary  thing  or  not,  we  have 
only  to  look  at  the  ideal  of  Jesus  and  then  at  the 
present  world.  A  very  imperfect  recapitulation  of 
the  working  principles  of  the  ideal  of  Jesus  was 
given  in  the  last  paragraph  but  one.  If  a  reader  will 
count  up  the  institutions  and  practices  known  to  him 
as  now  existing,  that  would  be  brought  to  an  end  or 
radically  changed  by  the  application  of  that  idea,  he 
can  tell  at  once  whether  Christianity  is  a  revolu- 
tionary thing.  Sometimes  it  seems  as  if  Christianity 
would  make  a  clean  sweep  of  the  methods  and  institu- 
tions of  society  if  it  had  its  way.  But  that  feeling 
is  excessive;  it  would  not  do  that.  There  is  very 
much  that  is  good  in  the  life  that  men  live  together, 
and  much  that  Christianity  would  not  destroy,  but 


304  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

would  preserve  and  improve.  But  all  the  good  is 
imperfectly  developed  and  expressed,  and  all  is  ham- 
pered and  embarrassed  by  combination  with  evil,  so 
that  it  nowhere  has  perfect  opportunity  to  be  itself 
and  do  its  work.  The  good  in  the  social  order  needs 
to  be  set  free  from  the  body  of  death  to  which  it  is 
bound.  There  are  institutions  and  practices  that 
grew  up  for  the  common  welfare,  that  have  been 
sadly  perverted  to  the  service  of  selfishness.  The 
social  organism  itself  grew  up  to  promote  the  com- 
mon good,  but  self-interest  has  mastered  great  sec- 
tions of  its  life.  The  evil  that  is  wrought  into  the 
social  structure  has  always  been  in  evidence,  but  is 
better  known  to-day  than  ever.  I  should  be  ashamed 
to  put  details  of  social  evil  upon  this  page  as  if  they 
were  needed  for  conviction.  Any  one  who  does  not 
know  that  Christianity  would  work  deep  revolution 
in  society  if  it  had  its  way  is  ignorant  either  of  society 
or  of  Christianity,  or  of  both. 

Yet  many  hold  that  although  Christianity  is  a  rev- 
olutionist it  is  not  intended  to  revolutionize:  it  is 
designed  to  save  a  group  of  men  for  another  world, 
but  not  to  work  in  this  world  the  beneficent  revolution 
that  corresponds  to  its  character.  That  is  to  say, 
God  has  placed  in  this  world  a  revolutionary  force, 
but  does  not  intend  it  to  do  its  work  and  impart  its 
character  to  society  which  is  perishing  for  want  of  it. 
This  is  the  outlook  of  many  Christians,  but  how  it 
differs  from  a  deep  infidelity  it  is  hard  to  see.  It  sig- 
nifies that  God  does  not  really  mean  the  goodness 
that  he  has  put  in  the  world  in  the  gospel  of  his  Son. 


SOCIETY  305 

It  comes  into  the  world  as  a  living  and  powerful  good- 
ness, and  if  it  had  its  way  it  would  undo  innumerable 
evils  and  purify  the  all-pervading  relations  of  human- 
ity; but  God  does  not  mean  that  it  shall  do  this.  He 
limits  its  sphere  and  intends  it  for  far  less  good  than 
it  is  adapted  to  accomplish.  It  cannot  be,  then,  that 
he  is  as  good  as  in  Christianity  he  seems.  Christi- 
anity reports  a  better  God  than  there  is,  and  the 
being  whom  Jesus  proclaimed  as  the  all-trustworthy 
Father  has  no  existence.  A  God  who  does  not  mean 
his  own  good  tidings  to  the  full  is  not  a  God  to  trust. 
No,  Christianity  is  revolutionary  in  power  and 
revolutionary  in  purpose.  It  is  in  the  world  to  make 
its  assault  upon  the  evils  that  prey  upon  the  human 
race,  and  put  in  their  place  the  fulfilment  of  the  ideal 
of  Jesus.  And  if  this  is  to  be  done  at  all  it  must 
be  done  in  the  large.  Society  is  the  field  of  Chris- 
tianity. To  bring  the  sound  and  godly  life  to  per- 
fection in  the  narrow  field  of  individualism  is  impos- 
sible. The  great  laws  of  life  depend  upon  reciprocity, 
and  cannot  be  brought  to  full  effect  until  men  are 
obeying  them  together.  There  are  duties  that  are 
altogether  social;  high  virtues,  too,  that  cannot  be 
exercised  except  in  the  social  field.  The  Christian 
character  is  a  social  character  as  well  as  a  private, 
and  the  full  victory  of  Jesus'  ideal  can  be  won  only 
by  a  revolution  that  touches  every  fibre  of  the  social 
heart  and  every  action  of  the  social  life. 

I  do  not  propose  to  go  through  the  list  and  specify 
the  practices  and  institutions  that  the  revolutionary 


306  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

ideal  of  Jesus  would  condemn  and  destroy.  My 
purpose  does  not  require  that,  and  besides  he  would 
be  a  bold  man  who  thought  he  knew  enough  to  pass 
through  the  world  thus  bearing  the  lamp  of  judgment. 
But  I  am  inclined  to  propose  a  catechism  for  private 
meditation — for  discussion,  too,  if  any  should  care  to 
use  it  in  examination  of  facts.  In  studying  the  Gos- 
pels we  have  had  the  working  principles  of  the  ideal 
of  Jesus  set  before  us  in  no  uncertain  form.  They 
are  the  principles  on  which  Jesus  Christ  would  make 
a  new  world  of  men.  It  is  our  duty  to  look  about  the 
world  in  the  light  of  them,  and  let  their  light  do  its 
legitimate  revealing  of  facts  and  needs.  They  sug- 
gest a  long  line  of  questions  which  we  are  required  to 
ask.  The  world  will  have  to  ask  them  yet,  and  not 
only  to  answer  them  in  words,  but  to  make  its  prac- 
tice correspond.  They  are  beginning  to  be  asked, 
and  the  right  answers  are  coming  out;  but  the  work 
is  only  begun,  and  the  questions  are  pressing  for 
attention  now.  They  make  a  heart-searching  cate- 
chism, profitable  for  us  to  ponder  on  and  pray  over. 
I  cannot  give  them  all,  for  the  list  is  endless,  but 
some  of  them  may  be  set  in  order  here. 

What  changes  would  universal  deference  to  God 
make  in  the  tone  and  quality  of  the  life  that  men  live 
together  ^  What  if  men  and  women  livingly  believed 
in  the  good  God  and  Father  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  really  thought  that  his  holy  and  gracious  will 
was  the  will  for  them  to  do  ?  What  would  follow  if 
a  willing  and  cheerful  reverence  for  God  became 
the  ruling  temper  in  their  social  existence  ^     What 


SOCIETY  307 

changes  would  follow  if  they  habitually  looked  up 
in  spirit,  instead  of  looking  around  them  or  below, 
and  took  their  standards  from  that  higher  world 
where  God  gives  character  to  all  ?  What  if  the  desire 
to  be  good  like  the  Father,  and  to  act  accordingly, 
were  carried  into  the  relations  that  the  business  of  the 
world  involves  ?  What  would  happen  to  all  who 
work  together  if  all  the  daily  work  were  done  as  in 
the  sight  of  God  ?  What  if  men  and  women  every- 
where were  possessed  by  the  sane  and  industrious 
optimism  that  springs  from  faith  in  the  God  of  all 
goodness  as  the  God  of  all  ?  How  great  and  far- 
reaching  a  change  would  such  godliness  bring  in  ? 
In  what  respects  would  the  tone  of  life  be  altered  ? 
What  would  the  new  atmosphere  effect  ?  What 
would  retire  ?  and  in  what  order  would  the  ancient 
evils  go  ? 

What  has  Jesus'  ideal  of  human  value  to  say  of 
existing  social  facts  ?  How  well  does  common  prac- 
tice correspond  to  the  valuation  that  he  set  upon  hu- 
man beings  ?  How  is  that  valuation  respected  in  the 
use  that  is  made  of  men,  women,  and  children  in  great 
manufactories  ?  How  far  does  it  approve  the  treat- 
ment of  the  great  laboring  class  in  general  ?  How 
justly  is  human  value  estimated  in  the  laws  and 
customs  that  deal  with  intoxicating  drinks  ?  How 
worthily  and  honorably  do  these  practices  treat 
the  human  being  ?  How  justly  is  the  real  value  of 
women  considered  in  the  various  uses  that  men  make 
of  them  ?  Do  the  usages  of  business  put  due  value 
upon  children,  and  help  them  to  realize  their  worth  ? 


308  THE   IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

What  kind  of  justice  is  done  to  human  value  in 
dealing  with  criminals,  in  the  prison  systems  of  the 
world  and  in  other  schemes  of  punishment  or  ref- 
ormation ?  How  far  is  government  devoted  to  the 
conservation  and  improvement  of  human  value  ? 
Indeed,  how  much  attention  does  organized  society 
deliberately  pay  anywhere  to  the  intrinsic  and  po- 
tential value  of  anything  and  everything  that  is 
human  ?  How  long  would  it  take  to  impress  a  legis- 
lature with  the  idea  ?  According  to  Jesus,  human 
beings  are  of  high  intrinsic  value,  precious  to  God, 
invaluable  to  themselves,  capable  of  great  service. 
To  him  they  were  worth  the  devotion  of  a  lifetime 
and  the  laying  down  of  a  life.  When  they  were  in 
need  he  would  minister  to  them;  when  they  were 
morally  sick  he  would  be  their  physician.  What 
consideration  of  men  does  his  ideal  demand  now  ? 
In  a  new  construction,  what  would  it  substitute  for 
the  present  treatment  of  men  in  manufacturing,  of 
children  in  labor,  of  women  in  the  nether  world .? 
How  would  he  save  these  values,  now  recklessly 
wasted  ?  What  would  he  substitute  for  the  present 
elaborate  encouragement  of  drunkenness  for  which 
society  is  responsible  ?  What  for  the  present  theories 
and  practice  of  punishment  ?  What  would  he  do 
with  the  great  mass  of  laboring  men  as  they  exist 
to-day,  regarded  as  men  precious  to  God  and  to 
themselves,  and  what  would  he  inspire  them  to  do 
in  their  relations  with  the  world  which  they  serve  ? 
In  these  conditions,  and  in  others  like  them,  how 
would  Jesus'  ideal  of  human  value  work  construe- 


SOCIETY  309 

tively,  building  up  in  place  of  the  horrors  it  had  torn 
down  ? 

What  institutions  and  practices  would  be  affected 
if  the  ideal  of  Jesus  came  into  effect  through  acting 
upon  the  golden  rule,  "As  ye  would  that  men  should 
do  unto  you,  do  ye  even  so  unto  them'\^  What 
practices  would  cease  without  daring  to  ask  whether 
they  might  continue  ?  What  institutions  would  per- 
ish in  a  night  ?  What  modes  of  living,  what  con- 
tacts and  relations  between  person  and  person,  would 
be  possible  no  longer  ?  What  revolutions  would 
come  sweeping  in  ?  According  to  Jesus,  this  prin- 
ciple of  equality  and  just  interchange  is  the  righteous 
principle  for  all  life  of  men  together.  Alongside  it 
too  he  places  the  law  of  love,  similar  in  effect,  "Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself."  The  two  laws 
are  not  the  same,  and  yet  what  one  of  them  demands 
the  other  demands  also.  The  question  is  not  merely 
what  customs  they  would  expel,  and  what  ancient 
works  they  would  make  impossible.  Still  more  vital 
is  the  question  what  they  would  bring  in.  It  is  a  vast 
question  that  cannot  be  fully  answered  at  the  present 
stage,  but  it  can  be  asked  from  the  heart.  What  cus- 
toms would  society  take  up  if  it  were  to  undertake 
living  according  to  the  golden  rule  and  the  law  of 
neighbor-love  ?  What  new  ranges  of  personal  action 
would  be  opened  .?  What  new  methods  in  the  field 
of  business  ^  What  new  modes  of  neighborly  asso- 
ciation I  What  new  and  wiser  forms  of  help  I  What 
abandonment  of  ancient  social  axioms }  What  dis- 
covery and  acceptance  of  new  ones  on  a  higher  plane  ? 


310  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

What  would  the  golden  rule  and  the  law  of  neigh- 
bor-love and  the  sense  of  human  value  make  of 
the  present  system  of  competition  ?  How  would 
they  work  among  nations  ?  What  would  they  do 
with  war  ? 

What  would  the  ideal  of  Jesus,  godly,  just  and 
generous,  do  with  the  present  modesof  getting  wealth 
and  handling  it  ?  How  would  it  clear  the  field  of 
ancient  wrongs,  and  what  new  methods  would  it  set 
at  work  ?  How  would  it  readjust  business  after  dis- 
honesty had  gone  out  and  greed  had  been  eliminated  ? 
What  would  it  substitute  for  the  old  exploiting  of 
human  value  for  the  sake  of  money  value  ?  How 
would  it  curb  the  spirit  that  loves  to  combine  for  the 
sake  of  power  and  builds  up  strong  protection  for 
selfish  interests  ?  How  would  it  alter  the  standards 
of  expenditure  ?  What  effect  would  it  have  upon 
habits  of  luxury  ?  According  to  Jesus,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  serve  God  and  mammon.  How  would  his 
ideal  convict  men  of  having  the  spirit  that  cannot 
enter  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  and  how  would  it  cure 
them  of  it?  By  what  strong  inward  convictions 
and  spiritual  persuasions  would  his  ideal  bring  men 
over  from  mammon  to  God  ?  What  new  modes  of 
distribution  of  property  would  come  in,  more  just 
and  equal  as  well  as  more  helpful  ?  Through  what 
new  arrangements  would  both  the  rich  and  the  poor 
live  worthier  lives,  and  inherit  richer  blessing  through 
a  better  fellowship  than  they  have  ever  known  ? 

What  would  happen  to-day  if  society  were  trans- 
formed into  the  kingdom  of  God  through  adoption  of 


SOCIETY  311 

Jesus'  spirit  of  self-sacrificing  helpfulness  as  the 
spirit  of  all  life  ?  What  awakenings  would  there  be  ? 
What  agelong  neglects  would  cease  ?  What  unex- 
pected recognitions  would  occur  ?  What  mighty  in- 
spirations of  service  would  take  possession  of  powers 
long  indolent  or  turned  to  selfishness  ?  What  great 
new  works  of  fellowship  and  helpfulness  would  be 
undertaken  and  carried  through  ?  What  reinforce- 
ment of  spiritual  power  and  means  of  working  would 
flow  into  old  enterprises  for  good  ?  In  what  new 
forms  would  the  new  passion  of  grace  go  forth  in  the 
place  of  the  ancient  passion  of  self-seeking  and  self- 
interest  ?  According  to  Jesus,  godliness  and  love  to 
men  and  justice  and  the  sense  of  human  value  all 
unite  to  inspire  this  divine  passion,  this  necessity  of 
helping  at  whatever  cost;  and  our  deepest  hearts 
know  that  Jesus'  view  of  this  divine  passion  is  utterly 
reasonable  and  right.  What  will  this  passion  of  the 
cross  be  when  it  becomes  a  power  and  runs  through 
the  world  ?  Against  what  will  it  blaze  as  wrath  ? 
What  tyrannies  and  injustices  will  it  burn  up  ? 
Into  what  forms  of  loving  service  will  it  throw  itself 
as  life  ?  How  long  could  a  thousand  disgraces  last 
if  the  self-giving  spirit  of  Jesus  had  free  course, 
inspiring  men  to  take  up  the  cross  and  follow  him  ? 
How  long  could  any  one  think  that  God  was  unre- 
vealed  or  had  forsaken  the  earth  ?  How  long  could 
humanity  resist  the  warm  tide  of  blessing  that  came 
flooding  in  ?  How  long  could  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
be  delayed  ?  Nay,  the  kingdom  would  have  come  in 
power. 


312  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

So  the  questions  might  run  on,  for  there  is  no  end 
to  them.  It  is  a  heart-breaking  catechism,  though  it 
is  an  inspiring  one;  inspiring  because  of  the  vision 
that  it  shows  hanging  in  the  air,  heart-breaking 
because  the  vision  still  hangs  in  the  air,  and  the 
world  is  so  unready  to  call  it  down  to  earth.  But 
this  is  the  catechism  that  the  world  has  to  study. 
These  are  the  questions  that  the  ideal  of  Jesus  thrusts 
in  upon  men  living  together,  to  judge  the  manner  in 
which  they  live.  The  problems  of  society  cannot  be 
solved  until  these  questions  are  answered  in  Jesus' 
way,  not  in  theory  but  in  practice.  And  that  a  result 
worthy  of  the  ideal  is  to  be  wrought  out  is  the  hope, 
founded  in  God,  that  Jesus  has  inspired.  Not  that 
life  in  this  world,  with  its  brief  generations  and  per- 
petual change,  is  likely  ever  to  reach  a  condition  in 
which  there  can  be  no  change  for  the  better.  Tran- 
sient life  does  not  seem  to  be  organized  for  moral 
perfection.  But  a  revolutionary  work  that  shall  bring 
the  Christian  ideal  to  successful  expression  in  the 
common  life  is  to  be  expected  in  the  world  of  God. 
His  kingdom  is  yet  to  come  far  more  completely. 

When  we  think  of  such  a  revolution  in  the  social 
organism,  we  cannot  help  wondering  by  what  kind 
of  process  it  will  be  accomplished.  The  kingdom 
that  Jesus  founded  will  come  where  he  founded  it, 
upon  the  plane  of  this  present  life.  It  will  be  brought 
by  God  working  through  man  and  man  working 
with  God.  But  how .?  Will  the  order  and  methods 
of  the  existing  world  be  suddenly  abandoned  under 


SOCIETY  313 

the  Impulse  of  an  awakened  conscience,  and  an  or- 
ganization on  new  principles  built  up  in  its  place  ? 
Or,  In  the  more  evolutionary  mode,  will  changes 
be  made  one  after  another  as  worthier  convictions 
become  strong  enough,  until  society  Is  a  Christian 
thing  ?  Which  is  the  right  way  in  view  of  the 
ideal  of  Jesus  ?  Which  hope  is  the  more  Christian  ? 
Should  we  plan  to  take  part  in  the  overthrow  of  the 
present  social  order,  or  In  a  progressive  Improvement 
of  It  ? 

Questions  of  reconstruction  often  present  them- 
selves as  first  questions,  entitled  to  first  attention, 
but  they  are  not.  They  are  important,  but  do  not 
hold  the  primacy.  The  Indispensable  revolution 
does  not  need  to  be  planned  until  It  has  been  in- 
spired. Not  until  then  Indeed  can  it  be  planned  In 
the  spirit  that  must  accomplish  it.  It  is  not  a  new 
theory  of  society  that  Is  needed  at  once,  but  a  new 
conscience,  a  new  sense  of  the  manifold  need,  a  new 
resolve,  a  new  readiness  to  act.  The  first  question 
Is  whether  the  heart  and  mind  of  Christians  and  of  all 
lovers  of  their  kind  are  to  be  awakened  to  the  bringing 
of  the  Christian  revolution.  The  first  task  is  that  of 
awakening  society  to  the  Christian  and  the  unchris- 
tian facts  that  belong  to  Its  life,  arousing  the  sense  of 
responsibility,  quickening  human  fellowship,  enlist- 
ing the  army  for  the  spiritual  war.  Not  that  all  this 
can  be  done  In  a  vacuum:  there  must  be  work  in 
hand  or  the  awakening  will  be  no  better  than  interest 
In  a  debating  society.  But  there  Is  unquestionable 
reform  enough  instantly  needed  to  employ  the  newly 


314  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

awakened  interest,  and  the  way  to  much  of  it  is 
entirely  plain.  But  for  the  vast  issue  of  universal 
reconstruction  the  time  is  not  yet  ripe. 

Yet  the  question  of  future  method  casts  its  shadow 
before,  and  it  is  difficult  to  leave  it  unnoticed.  Many 
feel  that  the  present  social  order  is  so  full  of  wrong 
as  to  be  incapable  of  reformation;  gradual  changes 
for  the  better  would  amount  only  to  patching  up  an 
old  system  that  can  never  be  made  Christian  or  any- 
thing like  it.  The  only  way  is  to  throw  it  all  down  and 
reorganize  our  common  life  throughout  on  more 
righteous  principles.  Many  are  convinced  that  the 
world  is  rushing  on  toward  a  reconstruction,  not  by 
mending,  but  by  abandonment  and  complete  re- 
building. 

Since  I  have  spoken  so  positively  about  the  ideal  of 
Jesus,  claiming  that  it  is  adapted  to  all  the  require- 
ments of  life,  I  might  perhaps  be  expected  to  go  fur- 
ther and  tell  what  kind  of  reconstruction  it  demands 
and  would  provide.  Does  it  call  for  the  overthrow 
of  the  existing  social  order,  or  for  its  improvement  ? 
Which  should  we  plan  for,  destruction  of  the  ancient 
system,  or  renovation  ^  Perhaps  I  might  be  expected 
to  record  here  the  convictions  of  a  Socialist  or  an 
anti-Socialist,  and  tell  which  Jesus  would  be  if  he 
were  among  us  now.  But  I  cannot  go  into  that. 
On  the  vast  question  of  the  future  organization  of 
society  I  am  not  certain  that  I  have  any  present 
message.  I  do  not  feel  that  I  know  the  great  world 
well  enough  to  know  the  true  solution  of  the  problem 
of  social  method.     I  am  not  wise  enough  to  see  just 


SOCIETY  315 

how  the  ideal  of  Jesus  would  work  itself  into  expres- 
sion in  the  institutions  of  a  world. 

But  meanwhile  some  things  are  certain.  It  is  cer- 
tain that  the  Christian  way  is  to  put  social  evils  away 
as  rapidly  as  we  can  see  the  way  to  do  so.  If  we 
cannot  annihilate  them  at  a  stroke,  as  on  the  field 
of  society  we  certainly  cannot,  the  ideal  of  Jesus 
would  inspire  us  to  limit  them,  to  diminish  them,  to 
deprive  them  of  their  opportunity  and  cut  off  their 
power,  to  educate  the  people  away  from  them.  This 
duty  belongs  to  individuals  and  to  groups;  but  indi- 
viduals and  groups  have  but  limited  opportunity  to 
do  such  work.  For  many  evils  no  individual  is  re- 
sponsible, and  no  group,  but  society  itself — if  not  for 
their  origin,  at  least  for  their  preservation,  protection, 
and  encouragement — and  society  ought  to  do  its 
duty  in  putting  them  away.  But  how  ?  Society 
seems  a  scattered  and  unmanageable  thing.  Yes,  in 
some  respects,  but  not  in  all.  For  many  purposes 
of  righteousness,  society  is  expressly  an  organized 
body  by  virtue  of  its  law-making  power.  This  being 
so,  the  ideal  of  Jesus  would  bid  society  use  its  power 
of  government  against  very  many  social  evils. 

Much  cynical  nonsense  has  been  talked  about  the 
impossibility  of  making  people  moral  by  legislation. 
Of  course  it  is  true  that  the  Christian  ideal  of  inward 
righteousness  cannot  be  attained  in  that  manner; 
that  is  too  plain  to  be  talked  about.  But  that  is  no 
reason  why  that  which  is  possible  should  not  be 
done.  We  cannot  make  men  righteous  by  law,  but 
by  law  we  can  make  them  quit  a  host  of  unrighteous 


316  THE   IDEAL   OF  JESUS 

practices.  Society  legislating  can  restrain  the  wicked 
and  protect  the  weak  and  give  life  its  opportunity; 
it  can  lift  the  pressure  of  injustice  from  many  who 
suffer  wrong;  it  can  rank  itself  on  the  side  of  hu- 
manity in  a  thousand  matters;  it  can  organize  many 
a  work  of  helpfulness  and  assist  the  Christian  spirit 
in  its  service.  It  cannot  do  any  of  these  things 
completely,  but  it  can  do  them  well  enough  to  work 
vast  improvement  in  the  present  situation.  The 
Christian  ideal  summons  all  governments  to  be  its 
agents,  doing  what  lies  within  their  power  to  help 
it  win  its  victory.  In  this  there  is  no  union  of  Church 
and  State;  the  truth  is  simply  that  Jesus  utters  his 
call  to  society  organized  as  government,  to  join  in 
working  out  his  righteous  principles.  All  this  seems 
so  obvious  as  scarcely  to  deserve  the  space  that  I  have 
given  it  on  the  page.  Nevertheless  it  is  not  in  vain 
to  speak  once  more  of  the  sound  relation  of  human 
law  to  the  Christian  ideal.  The  ideal  of  Jesus  re- 
quires that  society  should  freely  use  its  self-governing 
power  for  promotion  of  the  righteousness  with  which 
life  must  be  filled. 

And  of  course  it  is  equally  obvious  and  yet  equally 
worth  saying,  that  the  ideal  of  Jesus  calls  for  effort, 
labor,  patience,  concert,  combination,  organization, 
of  every  effective  sort,  for  doing  away  with  evils  in 
the  social  field.  All  workers  must  be  welcome,  and 
a  new  unity  must  grow  up,  the  unity  of  effort  to 
bring  the  kingdom  of  God  in  social  righteousness  and 
help.  The  church  has  its  calling,  but  cannot  do 
more  than  a  little  fraction  of  the  work.     All  organi- 


SOCIETY  317 

zations  for  social  betterment  are  workers  together 
with  God  and  the  church  for  the  fulfilment  of  the 
ideal  of  Jesus.  The  church  that  has  not  a  warm 
right  hand  of  fellowship  for  each  and  all  of  them  is 
not  acting  therein  as  a  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  but 
is  laying  its  high  character  aside. 

It  may  be  felt  that  these  hints  of  present  duty  look 
toward  the  realization  of  the  ideal  through  progressive 
change,  rather  than  through  a  sudden  overthrow;  by 
breathing  life  into  the  old  social  organism,  rather  than 
by  slaying  it  that  another  may  be  created.  That 
is  true,  I  must  confess.  It  certainly  is  our  Christian 
duty  to  make  progressive  change  in  the  social  organ- 
ism just  as  fast  as  we  can;  whether  a  convulsion  is 
coming  or  not,  this  is  the  method  that  is  now  in  opera- 
tion, with  the  sanction  of  all  that  is  good.  Thus  far 
certainly  God  has  brought  in  his  kingdom  step  by  step. 
History  bears  witness  and  encourages  our  hope  of  the 
coming  of  the  kingdom  through  progressive  change. 
That  is  to  say,  it  encourages  our  hope  if  we  can  lift 
up  our  eyes  to  look  at  long  periods.  If  we  are  in 
great  haste,  there  is  no  way  to  be  hopeful  but  through 
expecting  a  great  convulsion — though  how  convul- 
sion is  to  do  the  work  of  experience  it  is  hard  to  see. 
But  if  we  can  wait  for  the  end  while  we  are  in  haste 
for  the  progress,  we  may  take  hope  from  the  testi- 
mony of  the  past  that  God  brings  his  kingdom  step 
by  step. 

A  glance  at  the  fortunes  of  the  ideal  may  help  us 
to  see  in  what  quarter  hope  lies.     It  may  help  us  too 


318  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

to  bring  the  tribute  of  our  loyal  sympathy  to  Jesus, 
whose  ideal  we  are  watching  on  its  way  to  victory. 

Whei\  Jesus  gave  voice  to  his  ideal  in  his  life,  it 
was  his  and  no  one  else's.  He  knew  that  no  other 
saw  the  vision  that  he  beheld;  no  one  else  saw  God 
and  man  and  life  as  he  saw  them.  He  sought  to 
impart  his  ideal  to  his  disciples  and  educate  them  in 
power  to  discern  it,  and  he  offered  it  to  all  who  heard 
him,  for  them  to  receive  it  as  they  were  able.  In 
some  degree  he  gave  it  to  his  friends,  but  only  in 
rudimentary  fashion  did  they  discern  what  was  so 
clear  to  him.  They  were  still  at  the  beginning  of 
their  education.  So  when  he  went  away  he  knew 
that  the  ideal  that  filled  his  heart  was  left  in  a  world 
where  no  one  saw  it  as  yet,  except  in  glimpses.  Never- 
theless he  went  away  and  left  it  so;  and  very  beauti- 
ful and  touching  is  the  confidence  in  which  he  left 
his  vision  of  what  ought  to  be,  in  a  world  that  had 
scarcely  yet  begun  to  see  it.  And  yet  that  the  world 
might  see  it  was  the  purpose  of  his  appearing. 

Of  course  he  could  not  expect  that  his  ideal  would 
be  realized  soon.  He  could  only  throw  it  out  into 
the  world  for  men  to  learn,  to  practise  as  they  were 
able,  and  to  master  when  time  and  opportunity  might 
permit.  That  is  to  say,  his  ideal  had  nothing  before 
it  but  long  warfare  to  find  expression  through  imper- 
fect agents,  and  realization  through  crude  endeavors. 
It  was  certain  that  different  men,  groups,  nations, 
races,  would  not  only  apprehend  it  differently,  but 
misapprehend  it  differently,  and  bring  all  sorts  of 
faults  and  errors  into  its  company.    Various  modes  of 


SOCIETY  319 

life  would  bring  it  into  various  applications  and  work 
out  various  results,  and  all  would  react  upon  the  ideal 
itself  to  modify  it  in  their  minds.  Understanding  of 
it  could  be  wrought  out  only  by  long  experience,  that 
is,  by  experiment,  success,  and  failure.  There  is 
unspeakable  pathos  in  the  fortunes  of  the  good  in  an 
evil  world,  and  nowhere  is  it  deeper  than  in  the  his- 
tory of  Jesus'  ideal  of  human  life.  Naturally,  for  it 
is  the  highest  ideal  of  life  that  has  ever  been  cast  forth 
into  the  world  of  men,  and  it  was  offered  to  men 
whose  very  need  of  it  rendered  its  troubles  certain. 

After  his  departure  the  great  enlightenment  of  the 
divine  Spirit  came  upon  his  friends,  and  their  eyes 
were  opened  to  see  the  beauty  and  value  of  what  he 
had  given  them.  As  a  result  the  ideal  of  Jesus,  now 
better  discerned  and  loved,  took  its  place  among  the 
life  forces  of  the  age.  It  was  the  purest  ideal  of  life 
in  existence,  and  the  most  exacting,  and  yet  the  most 
winning,  for  all  who  felt  their  need.  It  inspired  such 
life  and  character  as  the  world  knew  not  of,  and  it 
glowed  with  a  contagious  energy  such  as  no  other 
ideal  possessed.  But  the  inevitable  variation  began 
at  once.  It  appears  already  within  the  New  Tes- 
tament. The  Pauline  and  Johannine  conceptions 
of  God  and  life  are  there,  and  others  besides,  and 
while  they  are  all  alike  at  heart  they  reveal  genuine 
differences.  To  all  these  new  watchers  for  the  future, 
what  Jesus  intended  to  accomplish  was  the  same,  and 
yet  it  was  not  conceived  in  the  same  manner  by  any 
two  of  them,  nor  did  they  think  alike  of  the  way  in 
which  he  was  to  win  his  victory.     Each  in  his  own 


320  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS 

way  the  Christian  laborers  were  working  toward  the 
coming  of  the  kingdom,  but  with  various  conceptions 
both  of  the  means  and  of  the  end.  The  vision  of 
Jesus  hung  before  them  all,  but  they  saw  it  in  many 
lights  and  with  unequal  clearness.  It  was  the  same 
to  them  all,  and  yet  not  the  same. 

The  cause  of  the  difference  is  perfectly  simple. 
The  ideal  of  Jesus,  discerned  by  various  men  with 
various  degrees  of  clearness  and  justice,  entered  in 
their  minds  into  union  with  their  various  experiences, 
characters,  views,  prepossessions,  and  modes  of  life. 
It  influenced  all  these  by  its  high  quality  and  power, 
but  in  turn  it  was  influenced  by  them  in  as  many 
ways  as  there  were  minds,  and  modified  in  its  quality 
as  a  working  force. 

We  might  wonder  at  this  and  regret  it.  Why,  we 
might  ask,  could  not  the  gift  of  Jesus  be  kept  un- 
changed and  pure .?  But  instead  of  wondering  we 
should  see  how  natural  it  was  and  how  necessary. 
This  is  the  only  way  in  which  a  great  ideal  could  ever 
exert  power  in  the  world.  In  no  other  manner  could 
it  live  from  age  to  age  and  be  effective.  A  great 
ideal  that  did  not  thus  plunge  into  life  and  enter  as  a 
vital  force  into  the  common  thoughts  of  men  would 
be  a  fruitless  thing.  An  ideal  must  take  its  place 
among  actual  working  forces,  and,  so  to  speak,  must 
take  its  chances  among  them.  Its  entrance  into  real 
life  must  be  thorough  and  intimate,  and  its  union 
with  the  living  motives  of  humanity  unreserved; 
otherwise  it  is  a  mere  opinion  on  the  shelf,  open  to 
consultation,  but  with  no  power  to  inspire.     In  this 


SOCIETY  321 

necessary  manner  the  ideal  of  Jesus  has  entered  into 
union  with  innumerable  conceptions  and  modes  of 
life  that  were  current  in  the  world,  and  in  a  sense 
it  has  inevitably  become  entangled  among  them.  It 
has  never  lost  its  power,  but  it  has  been  much 
hindered  of  its  force;  for  it  blended  often  with 
something  that  could  unite  with  it  but  poorly,  and 
sometimes  with  something  absolutely  hostile.  These 
chances  it  had  to  take  if  ever  it  was  to  win  its  victory. 
Nothing  else  has  ever  been  so  certain  of  such  for- 
tune with  all  that  it  involved  as  the  ideal  of  Jesus. 
Described  in  a  word,  it  is  the  ideal  of  the  highest 
living  in  religion  and  morals.  Plainly  this  ideal  is 
akin  to  all  that  is  best  and  worthiest  in  man,  and 
combines  naturally  with  all  the  virtues.  How  ready 
they  are  to  welcome  it  and  be  exalted  by  it!  But 
plainly  also  it  can  be  taken  up  without  the  abandon- 
ment of  all  that  contradicts  it.  If  it  could  not,  it 
could  have  no  saving  power  and  no  contact  with  a 
sinful  race.  Men  may  adopt  it  according  to  their 
light  and  virtue,  and  set  their  hearts  upon  it,  and  try 
to  realize  it,  while  yet  there  is  much  in  them  that 
would  forbid  or  modify  its  victory.  They  may  hold 
it,  and  love  it  in  their  measure,  while  yet  they  are 
selfish,  or  superstitious,  or  bound  by  bad  habits,  or 
too  ignorant  to  know  what  it  involves.  Indeed,  an 
ideal  of  lofty  living  is  the  very  thing  that  cannot 
choose  its  company.  If  it  is  to  do  its  work,  it  must 
enter  for  redemption's  sake  into  union  with  all  the 
existing  forces  of  the  world.  The  greatest  evil  will 
reject  it.     But  all  the  intermediate  grades  between 


322  THE  IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

that  and  its  own  high  character  will  take  it  in,  and 
bring  it  down  somewhat  toward  themselves,  and  be 
purified  by  it  into  something  better.  All  Christian 
history  is  one  long  tragic  and  glorious  illustration  of 
this  process. 

The  ideal  of  Jesus  long  ago  entered  into  union 
with  a  strong  habit  of  metaphysical  thinking.  Seekers 
of  God  have  felt  the  right  and  necessary  impulse  to 
think  out  subjects  that  loomed  large  in  the  field  of 
religious  experience,  and  have  easily  imagined  that 
the  thinking  out  of  the  religion  was  a  part  of  the 
religion  itself.  Consequently,  men  have  identified 
their  mental  constructions  with  the  truth  which  they 
were  intended  to  ascertain  or  to  clarify.  The  truths 
that  Jesus  threw  out  into  life  have  been  robed  in 
these  intellectual  garments  of  human  make,  and  have 
come  to  be  almost  unrecognizable  without  them.  Of 
course  the  garments  changed  the  appearance  of  the 
truths;  and  yet  it  was  in  the  robes  that  the  truths 
were  now  known  and  accepted.  Thus  there  grew  up 
an  ideal  of  metaphysical  theologians,  differing  both  in 
tone  and  in  contents  from  the  ideal  of  Jesus  as  we 
gather  it  from  the  Gospels;  and  hence  there  has  come 
to  exist  for  the  church  an  ideal  of  orthodoxy.  Essen- 
tial to  the  ideal  of  life  has  been  correctness  of  thought, 
by  which  was  meant  conformity  to  accepted  beliefs. 
In  the  ordinary  working  Christian  ideal,  the  idea  of 
orthodoxy  has  thus  taken  a  place  that  is  out  of  pro- 
portion to  its  importance,  if  we  judge  its  importance 
in  the  light  of  the  Gospels.  Consequently,  in  intimate 
association  with  this  overworked  idea  of  conformity 


SOCIETY  323 

the  ideal  of  Jesus  has  had  to  work  itself  out  as  best 
it  could.  Attention  has  been  much  transferred  from 
life  to  thought,  from  character  to  correctness  in  doc- 
trine, from  work  to  belief,  from  the  soul  to  the  mind, 
from  the  broad  field  of  society  to  the  limited  field  of 
ecclesiastical  relations;  and  the  result  has  been  that 
the  ideal  of  Jesus  has  been  somewhat  deprived  of  its 
opportunity.  Never  altogether  indeed,  for  that  was 
impossible;  but  it  has  been  distorted  somewhat,  and 
thrown  out  of  its  proportions,  and  weakened  for  its 
work,  by  too  close  blending  with  the  ideal  of  ortho- 
doxy. 

Long  ago  the  ideal  of  Jesus  entered  into  union  also 
with  the  idea  and  institutions  of  authority.  This  came 
most  naturally  to  pass,  in  view  of  the  character  of 
the  first  period  of  Christianity.  The  Roman  em- 
pire was  a  tremendous  institution  for  an  ideal  to 
reckon  with.  It  had  its  own  ideals,  not  all  unworthy, 
and  served  the  world  by  means  of  them,  but  spiritual 
conceptions  it  had  little  power  to  apprehend,  and  it 
had  no  help  to  give  to  the  ideal  of  Jesus.  Indeed 
when  the  conflict  came,  it  would  have  extinguished 
the  ideal  in  blood  if  the  ideal  could  have  been  so 
extinguished.  But  in  its  death,  by  one  of  the  strang- 
est turns  in  history,  the  empire  handed  on  the  be- 
quest of  its  essential  character  to  Christianity  itself. 
The  sense  of  the  need  of  an  authority  on  earth  when 
the  mighty  power  that  had  ruled  the  world  was  fall- 
ing inspired  the  Christian  force  of  the  time  to  seize 
the  throne  and  reign  in  the  empire^s  stead  in  the 
name  of  God.     The  motive  was  more  good  than  bad, 


324  THE   IDEAL  OF  JESUS 

and  it  is  hard  to  see  how  the  event  could  have  failed 
to  occur;  nevertheless  the  result  was  that  the  ideal 
of  Jesus  was  compelled  to  live  and  work  amid  the 
manifold  temptations  that  beset  the  possession  of 
spiritual  sovereignty.  For  centuries  the  church  was 
veritably  the  successor  to  the  empire,  and  the  ideal 
of  Jesus  was  wedded  to  the  institutions  of  authority. 
In  the  largest  part  of  Christendom  the  union  still 
continues,  and  we  are  even  now  witnessing  strong 
efforts  to  prevent  the  ideal  of  Christianity  from  getting 
away  at  all  from  that  of  authority.  In  this  alliance 
the  Christian  ideal,  so  far  from  being  disowned,  has 
been  held  high,  and  the  sincerest  endeavor  has  been 
made  to  control  life  in  the  interest  of  its  realization. 
But  the  Christian  ideal  does  not  contemplate  such 
authority,  or  blend  harmoniously  with  the  idea  of  it. 
It  is  not  a  master,  and  it  has  no  master,  except  God. 
Bearing  a  sceptre  and  a  sword,  it  has  not  been  able 
perfectly  to  be  itself. 

On  the  other  hand,  of  course  the  ideal  of  Jesus 
has  had  to  enter  into  union  with  the  conception  of 
liberty  that  is  characteristic  of  the  modern  age.  It 
has  done  much  to  encourage  the  democratic  spirit, 
and,  as  it  must,  is  blending  with  that  spirit  now 
wherever  it  is  abroad.  A  Christian  disciple  of  the 
modern  democracy  might  think  that  the  ideal  had 
but  to  be  set  free  from  the  bondage  of  external  au- 
thority to  come  to  perfection.  But  the  faults  are 
not  all  of  one  kind  or  in  one  place.  Liberty  has  its 
dangers  too.  The  ideal  of  Jesus  finds  itself  striving 
for    mastery  in  the  broad  struggle    of  free  society. 


SOCIETY  325 

At  its  side  strong  passions  are  released,  mighty  am- 
bitions are  awakened,  powerful  interests  are  at  work. 
Its  beloved  people  are  open  to  the  subtle  temptations 
of  freedom,  and  often  hold  it  in  alliance  with  a  false 
independence.  Not  even  in  alliance  with  its  kindred 
spirit,  liberty,  does  it  have  its  full  opportunity  and 
do  its  perfect  work. 

These  glimpses  are  enough  to  show  us  that  it  is 
no  reproach  to  the  ideal  of  Jesus  that  we  do  not  find 
it  fully  realized  in  the  life  of  the  world,  even  after  all 
these  centuries.  It  is  inevitable  that  we  should  find 
it  always  combined  and  complicated  with  inferior  or 
hostile  forces,  working  its  conquests  by  means  of 
such  alliances.  Only  so  can  its  victories  be  won 
and  its  quality  be  imparted  to  the  life  of  the  world. 
It  exists  in  these  combinations,  not  in  weakness  but 
in  power,  not  in  despair  but  in  hope.  It  is  there  to 
leaven  the  world  in  which  Jesus  left  it.  The  task 
of  history  is  to  bring  humanity  into  harmony  with 
God,  and  the  fortunes  of  the  ideal  of  Jesus  simply 
represent  the  process  by  which  that  work  must  be 
accomplished.  That  high  ideal  of  life  has  to  be  tried 
out  in  history,  and  so  do  the  inferior  ideals  that  are 
tied  to  it  with  hampering  effect.  As  we  look  on  we 
pray.  May  the  best  cause  win!  and  more  and  more  it 
will  win,  and  does.  The  mind  of  the  world  must  be 
educated,  and  won,  to  judge  and  choose  with  God, 
and  that  is  the  work  that  is  in  progress.  It  is  far 
enough  from  being  finished,  but  we  see  the  ideal 
of  Jesus  slowly  winning  victory  after  victory.  No 
cataclysm  has  come  to  the  rescue,  taking  the  work 


326  THE   IDEAL  OF   JESUS' 

out  of  the  hands  of  spiritual  forces,  but  step  by  step 
thus  far  God  has  brought  his  kingdom  on.  In  the 
same  manner  it  seems  Hkely  that  he  is  to  continue. 
Spiritual  forces  have  to  take  their  time,  but  there  are 
no  other  forces  that  can  make  spiritual  conquest  of  a 
world. 

But  spiritual  forces  are  quite  able  to  produce  some- 
thing more  than  gradual  and  progressive  change.  It 
is  quite  possible  that  in  due  time  the  unexpected  may 
occur.  The  day  may  come  when  society  is,  so  far 
awakened  and  enlightened  as  to  take  deliberate  hold 
of  the  task  of  reforming  itself  on  a  magnificent  scale, 
throwing  out  its  old  false  principles,  introducing 
methods  of  life  that  will  work  good  instead  of  evil, 
reconstructing  itself  according  to  the  ideal  of  Jesus. 
But  if  that  comes  to  pass,  as  God  grant  it  may,  it 
will  be  simply  an  acceleration  or  concentration  of  the 
mighty  work  of  God  through  human  conscience  and 
endeavor.  It  will  not  be  a  convulsion  from  without, 
but  a  continuation  of  the  manner  that  Jesus  initiated. 
Step  by  step  will  still  be  the  method,  but  that  step  will 
be  a  great  one;  and  after  it  many  other  great  steps 
unpredictable  by  us  may  be  found  necessary  and  taken 
by  the  better-taught  soul  of  mankind. 

The  present  duty  of  Christian  people  may  be  illus- 
trated from  an  interesting  situation  of  our  own  time. 
The  process  of  evolution  has  always  been  going  on, 
of  course,  and  the  movement  of  nature  and  man  has 
gone  upon  this  principle,  but  no  one  knew  it.  The 
fact  had  not  come  into  knowledge  and  been  defined. 


SOCIETY  327 

Only  in  the  last  half-century  have  men  begun  to 
understand  the  great  process  in  which  they  are  all 
involved.  Lately  men  do  begin  to  feel  themselves 
in  the  midst  of  a  great  process,  onward  and  mainly 
upward,  of  such  nature  that  all  that  is  put  into  the 
process  of  life  will  come  out  again  in  the  quality  of 
later  stages.  Since  the  dawning  of  this  knowledge 
some  have  been  awakened  to  feel  that  they  are  no 
true  sons  of  their  race  unless  they  contribute  their 
best  will  and  effort  to  help  the  upward  movement  of 
humanity.  That  movement  is  not  automatically 
certain  to  be  the  best;  its  upward  tendency  may  be 
thwarted  at  any  point  by  the  ignorance  or  folly  of 
men;  but  every  human  soul  may  actually  take  part  in 
making  it  a  better  movement.  The  hope  is,  indeed, 
that  the  race  itself  may  yet  be  awakened  to  take  its 
evolution  into  its  own  hands  and  guide  it  by  its  own 
best  intelligence  and  conscience.  Therefore  in  the 
light  of  this  new  opportunity  some  true  souls  are 
studying  the  world  and  their  own  powers,  and  learn- 
ing where  to  place  their  best  endeavors,  and  putting 
their  might  into  the  promotion  of  a  better  evolution 
for  mankind.  Not  a  few  have  come  to  call  it  a  privi- 
lege of  the  first  order  that  they  can  thus  place  them- 
selves at  the  service  of  the  evolution  of  their  race. 

The  case  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  unlike  that  of 
the  doctrine  of  evolution,  in  that  the  knowledge  of  it 
is  no  new  thing.  From  of  old  the  kingdom  of  God 
has  been  known  and  loved  and  waited  for,  and  men 
have  been  its  servants.  But  the  case  is  similar,  in 
that  men  have  not  fully  understood  the  service  which 


328  THE  IDEAL   OF   JESUS 

it  was  in  their  power  to  render  to  the  kingdom.  Here 
too  is  a  great  and  all-pervasive  movement  in  the 
world.  It  is  divinely  good,  but  humanly  imperfect. 
It  is  working  for  the  very  noblest  end,  but  is  not  work- 
ing perfectly  or  tending  straight  toward  the  accom- 
plishment of  its  purpose.  The  ideal  of  Jesus,  worthy 
of  God,  is  working  toward  the  redemption  of  all  hu- 
man life  from  its  characteristic  evil,  but  it  is  working 
under  difficulties.  It  is  not  alone  and  unhindered. 
It  is  combined,  as  a  working  force,  with  all  manner 
of  human  imperfections.  It  works  through  human 
agents  who  do  not  altogether  understand  it  or  sym- 
pathize with  it.  It  is  burdened  with  results  from 
ancient  faults  and  errors.  It  is  claimed  in  support 
of  many  an  evil  that  has  become  allied  with  it.  So  it 
is  hampered  without  and  within  in  its  work  of  winning 
the  world  to  itself.  Thus  the  movement  of  the  king- 
dom of  God  in  the  world,  which  is  identical  with  the 
work  of  Jesus'  ideal,  is  not  inherently  certain  to  be 
the  best:  it  is  liable  to  inconsistencies  of  many  kinds 
and  is  certain  to  fall  below  its  own  best  possibilities. 
That  this  situation  is  inevitable  and  a  necessary  part 
of  the  divine  process,  does  not  make  it  less  worthy  of 
our  attention.  It  ought,  rather,  to  call  our  attention 
all  the  more  sharply  to  our  own  duty.  The  lesson  is, 
that  every  soul  is  summoned  to  take  part  with  the 
pure  ideal  of  Jesus  and  help  it  toward  its  victory. 
We  are  all  called  to  help  the  gospel  of  Christ  to  be 
itself.  We  must  learn  to  distinguish  things  that 
differ,  and  approve  the  true.  The  Christian  heart  of 
to-day  must  set  itself  to  release  the  high  ideal  of  Jesus 


SOCIETY  329 

from  union  with  whatever  contradicts  it  or  prevents 
its  power  from  going  forth.  It  has  suffered  long 
from  entanghng  alHances;  it  is  ours  to  disentangle  it 
from  some  of  them  and  offer  it  free  opportunity  to 
do  its  work  of  blessing.  It  is  in  this  way  most  of  all 
that  we  are  summoned  to  be  workers  together  with 
God  and  with  his  Christ. 


BOOKS  BY 

WILLIAM  NEWTON  CLARKE,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Theology  at  Colgate  University 

SIXTY  YEARS 
WITH  THE  BIBLE 

A  Record  of  Experience 

12mo  $1.25  net,  postpaid  $1.35 

"  He  persuaaes  and  defends  by  telling  simply,  with 
convincing  sincerity  and  frankness,  how  he  himself 
was  led  very  gradually,  but  irresistibly,  away  from 
the  common  view  which  all  evangelicals  held  a  half 
century  ago  to  that  which  obtains  among  moderate 
progressives  of  the  present.  The  process  is  described 
in  detail,  always  with  clearness,  and  without  the  sHght- 
est  touch  of  bitterness  or  partisanship." 

— The  Independent. 

"It  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  one  can  find  him  at 
fault  at  any  point.  .  .  .  This  frank  recital  of  his  ex- 
perience will  serve  admirably  as  a  guide  to  less 
thorough  and  discerning  minds." — The  Nation. 

"We  heartily  appreciate  and  are  glad  to  recognize 
the  beautiful  spirit  in  which  this  book  is  written." 

— The  Examiner. 

"  This  book  has  the  great  advantage  of  travelling 
along  an  altogether  practical  road,  and  leads  the 
reader  along  a  path  which  he  himself  has  doubtless 
trodden  in  part." — New  York  Christian  Advocate. 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS,  NEW  YORK 


BY   WILLIAM  NEWTON   CLARKE,  D.D. 

THE  CHRISTIAN 
DOCTRINE  OF  GOD 

{International  Theological  Library) 
Crown  8vo  $2.50  net 

"  It  is  a  book  which  will  enter  current  religious 
life  as  a  sweetening  and  purifying  influence  revealing 
to  many  the  truths  by  which  they  have  lived,  but 
which  they  knew  not  how  to  state.  It  will  make  for 
faith,  for  wiser  and  deeper  faith,  and  will  instruct  in 
method  of  approach  to  religious  truth  as  well  as 
convey  large  portions  of  the  truth  itself." 

The  Itidependent. 

"  Dr.  Clarke  eschews  absolutely  all  metaphysical  and 
philosophical  questions  and  furnishes  us  instead  a 
persuasive  and  winsome  exposition  of  the  religious 
content  of  the  God-idea  as  held  by  the  Christian 
OuMxohy— Biblical  World. 

"  No  one  can  read  the  book  with  intelligent  interest 
and  not  have  a  more  vivid  realization  of  the  match- 
less character,  the  infinite  greatness  and  gracious  near- 
ness of  the  only  true  and  living  God.  .  .  .  The  author 
has  done  his  work  nobly  and  well." 

— The  Baptist  Review  and  Expositor. 

"  An  instructive  book,  full  of  clear  thought  and  in- 
dependent insight ;  but  it  is  something  better ;  it  is  a 
live  book,  dealing  with  realities  and  not  with  words 
merely,  and  relying  for  its  appeal  upon  the  assent  of 
the  reader's  own  experience." 

— The  American  Journal  of  Theology. 


An  Outline  of  Christian 

Theology 

Crown  8vo  $2.50  mt 

"This  is  the  simplest,  clearest,  most  radical,  and  most 
spiritual  theological  treatise  we  have  ever  seen.  It  is,  in- 
deed, in  these  four  characteristics  rather  a  treatise  on 
religion  than  on  theology.  It  is  vital,  not  scholastic ;  a 
minister  to  largeness  of  life,  through  clearness  of  thought. 
.  .  .  To  ministers  holding  in  whole  or  in  part  the  new 
philosophy,  we  recommend  this  volume  as  showing  them 
how  to  use  that  philosophy  to  conserve,  nourish,  and 
strengthen  the  old  faith." — TAe  Outlook. 

"We  have  read  it  with  great  interest.  Its  author, 
though  so  modest  as  not  to  prefix  the  word  *  Professor  *  to 
his  name,  at  once  commands  our  respect.  He  is  a  clear 
thinker,  a  fine  scholar,  a  scientific  and  philosophical  the- 
ologian. The  work  is  able  ;  it  is  stimulating ;  it  is  fresh, 
and  reveals  him  in  touch  with  the  latest  thought  of  the  day. 
It  is  in  many  respects  an  epoch-making  book.  .  .  .  We 
commend  this  book  to  any  who  desire  to  get  the  clearest 
statement  of  the  new  theology  that  can  be  founa  in 
English." — Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review. 

Professor  Marcus  Dods  writes  : — **  Has  it  ever  happened 
to  any  of  our  readers  to  take  up  a  work  on  systematic 
theology,  with  the  familiar  divisions,  'God,'  'Man,'  'Sin,' 
'Christ,'  'The  Holy  Spirit,'  'The  Church,'  'The  Last 
Things,*  and  open  it  with  a  sigh  of  weariness  and  dread, 
and  find  himself  fascinated  and  enthralled,  and  compelled 
to  read  on  to  the  last  word  ?  Let  any  one  who  craves  a  new 
experience  of  this  kind  procure  Dr.  Clarke's  '  Outline.'  We 
guarantee  that  he  will  learn  more,  with  greater  pleasure, 
than  he  is  likely  to  learn  in  any  other  systematic  theology." 


BY   WILLIAM    NEWTON    CLARKE,   D.D. 

A  Study  of  Christian  Missions 

12mo  $1.25 

"  Details  of  organization  and  method  are  discussed  with  far- 
seeing  sagacity  and  clearness." — Christian  Advocate. 

Can  I  Believe  in  God  the  Father? 

(Lectures  Delivered  before  the  Harvard  Summer  School 
12mo  °'  Theology)  ^^ ^ 

"  Dr.  Clarke  has  handled  some  of  the  most  profound  specula- 
tions in  theology  with  rare  simplicity  and  force.  He  introduces 
his  hearer  at  once  to  an  exposition  of  the  practical  argument  for 
the  being  of  God  which  is  unusually  lucid  and  suggestive.  His 
language  is  simple  and  the  analysis  of  his  thoughts  perspicuous." 

—  The  Churchman, 

What  Shall  We  Think  of  Christian- 

•itxrQ       (The  Levering  Lectures  before  the  Johns  Hopkins 
**-y  *         University.   1899) 

12mo  $1.00 

".  .  .  The  address  of  a  cultured  man  to  cultured  hearers;  they 
are  intent  on  what  is  essential  and  vital;  they  deal  with  facts 
rather  than  theories;   the  note  of  realism  is  heard  throughout." 

—  The  Outlook. 

The  Use  of  the  Scriptures  in 
l2mo  Theology  ^^^ 

*'  Many  a  reader  will  find  his  own  difficulties  and  struggles 
accurately  delineated.  It  is  this  comradeship  in  a  common  men- 
tal and  moral  suffering  which  gives  the  book  its  hold  and  mental 
fascination." — The  Standard. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBi 


t'^AjAdfev^^^ 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 


NO'^ 


ijy  1938 


nJunAfaUi 


-0£^ 


50Ti 


^r^"^''': 


n 


.5— «S|FR — 


YC  29878 


/ 


303996 


^iA^<^'i,'^ 


c 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


Ji 


